FAIT Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

0905

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.))

Ms. Patricia Blackstaff (Executive Assistant to the President, Canadian Labour Congress)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Georgetti (President, Canadian Labour Congress)

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

0925

The Chair

Mr. Ken Georgetti

The Chair

Mr. Ken Georgetti

0930

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

Mr. Ken Georgetti

0935

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Laliberté (Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress)

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

0940

Mr. Steven Benedict (Director of International Department, Canadian Labour Congress)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Steven Benedict

The Chair

Ms. Anna Nitoslawska (International Program Administrator, Canadian Labour Congress)

0945

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Ken Georgetti

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Ken Georgetti

Mr. Steven Benedict

0950

Mr. Ken Georgetti

Ms. Patricia Blackstaff

The Chair

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

0955

The Chair

Mr. Steven Benedict

Ms. Anna Nitoslawska

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Ken Georgetti

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.)

1000

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Ken Georgetti

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Ken Georgetti

Mr. Pierre Laliberté

1005

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

1010

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

1015

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

1020

Her Excellency Sallama Mahmoud Shaker (Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt to Canada)

1025

The Chair

His Excellency Pierre Diouf (Ambassador of the Republic of Senegal to Canada)

1030

The Chair

His Excellency Philémon Yunji Yang (High Commissioner of the Republic of Cameroon in Canada)

1035

1040

The Chair

His Excellency André Jaquet (High Commissioner of the Republic of South Africa in Canada)

1045

1050

The Chair

His Excellency Berhanu Dibaba (Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in Canada)

1055

1100

The Chair

His Excellency Youcef Yousfi (Ambassador of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria to Canada)

1105

The Chair

Mr. Nuradeen Aliyu (Deputy High Commissioner for the Federal Republic of Nigeria)

1110

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Diouf

The Chair

1115

Mr. Stockwell Day

1120

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Diouf

Mr. André Jaquet

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

1125

Mr. Pierre Diouf

1130

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

1135

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Philémon Yunji Yang

The Chair

Mr. Youcef Yousfi

1140

The Chair

Ms. Sallama Mahmoud Shaker

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

1145

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. André Jaquet

The Chair

Mr. Youcef Yousfi

1150

The Chair

Mr. Philémon Yunji Yang

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

1155

Mr. Pierre Diouf

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 073

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): Order.

Our order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a study of North American integration and Canada's role in light of the new security challenges.

We have before us as witnesses today Mr. Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, accompanied by his senior economist, Mr. Pierre Laliberté, as well as Mr. Steven Benedict, the director of the international department. We also have Ms. Patricia Blackstock.

Ms. Patricia Blackstaff (Executive Assistant to the President, Canadian Labour Congress): Blackstaff.

The Chair: What is your...? I had here the director of communications.

Ms. Patricia Blackstaff: I'm Mr. Georgetti's executive assistant.

The Chair: All right. Thank you. Welcome.

We want to begin by asking you to make opening remarks. You can introduce your colleagues formally, just in case I missed the correct titles. You can also indicate how your presentation will flow.

Mr. Ken Georgetti (President, Canadian Labour Congress): Yes, I will. Thank you, Chair.

I'd also like to introduce Anna Nitoslawska, who is with us and is in our international department; in fact, she just got back yesterday from a tour in Africa.

The Chair: Welcome.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: We welcome the opportunity to address this Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis in June.

I'll not be reading the brief that's been circulated. My presentation aims at walking you through the main points with some personal highlights. We will address in turn the three main issues on the agenda, namely the world economic situation, security and terrorism, and strategies to address the situation of the world's least developed nations, including the new economic plan for African development, or NEPAD.

The document starts with an overview of the world economic situation. Like everyone else, we find hope in the revised growth projections for the Canadian economy; however, we believe the jury is still out on whether the world has escaped for good a global recession. There are ominous signs still visible, and we should avoid becoming complacent, we think. The U.S. economy, the engine of growth for the rest of world since the mid 1990s, is for us giving ambivalent signals.

Corporate profits are still down. The unused productive capacity in all industry is high, with overhangs most noticeable in some high-tech sectors. Most worrisome, though, it remains a highly leveraged economy, in terms of both corporate and household debt. This could spell trouble in terms of that economy's capacity to go on to the next step of normal recovery, we think.

Clearly the U.S. economy was able to live beyond its means for a number of years and to defy, essentially, the laws of economic gravity, as no one seemed to care much about its current account deficit or the persistent over-evaluation of the American dollar. Those days now are over.

The U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world will probably reach a new record this year. This will in time spell trouble, not only for Americans but for Canada and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the two other potential main engines of growth are inoperative as we speak. Japan is mired in its fourth recession in ten years, while in Europe, the European central bank seems intent on fighting against non-existent inflation at the cost of both low growth and additional unemployment. The rest of the world remains, with few exceptions, stuck at low rates of growth because of the depressed economic conditions in all three main economic centres.

Not so paradoxically, it's those countries that are the least integrated in the global economy--China, India, and Russia--that did the best last year. It's crucial that the G-8 summit address the conditions of continued growth for the foreseeable future, we say.

We urgently need to envision strategies that will make us and the rest of the world less dependent on the United States market. One level at which this has to take place is internationally. Here the G-8 can play a leading role in encouraging more coordination to ensure everyone pulls their weight in a global reflation strategy.

The key component to such a strategy is to reflate domestic economies--in other words, encourage domestic fiscal and monetary policies that are not repressive of growth but aim at full employment and make full use of productive capacity instead of low inflation. To put it differently, in the absence of a replacement global economic engine, it might well mean all economies will have to rely on their own smaller engine to make headway for them.

¿ (0910)

Key in this reflation strategy is to give developing countries the room they need to define their own path to development. Also key to this strategy are policies geared at reducing the instability of this global financial system. As the financial crisis over the last eight years has shown, the system is very volatile, with dire consequences not only for the countries concerned, but for growth in the rest of the world as well.

The Canadian Labour Congress is on record as calling for the establishment of a tax on currency transactions as a policy lever to modulate currency movements. As well, we believe developing countries should have the freedom to integrate capital controls if they so choose, to better ensure a stable and predictable framework for their development. In short, leaders of the industrialized countries have a dual responsibility to their own constituents as well as developing countries to act as catalysts in responding to the current economic uncertainty.

Our point of view aims at full employment. Our point of view addresses the needs and dreams of working families in Saskatoon, in Montreal, in Toronto, in Antigonish, which leads me to the issue of global security and terrorism.

As G-8 leaders discuss the issues of security and terrorism, it's imperative that they go beyond mere police and military considerations. The eleventh of September reminded us, I think in stark terms, that we live now in an increasingly integrated world where conflicts in other lands have tangible impacts closer to home. The truth of the matter is that no amount of security measures in the police sense can insulate anyone, even the most powerful nation, from acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, thus far the response to September 11 has largely been confined to military and domestic security measures. This one-sided response is not only inadequate to address the root problems themselves, but to some extent adds to the fire.

One of the issues the international community must urgently address is the enduring problem of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. In this spirit and in light of the ongoing Israeli operations in the West Bank, Canada should use all diplomatic means to ensure the fulfillment of the longstanding UN resolutions on the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

As a friend of both Israelis and Palestinians, Canada should also work toward the convening of an internationally sponsored peace conference in which all stakeholders in the region should and could participate.

I want to think and I believe working families in this country like to think that it's the Canadian diplomatic tradition to address these issues of security in terms of hope for the future, which often also means economic security for families. To achieve a fair measure of economic security for working people here and abroad, our governments must think differently when it comes to a new development agenda.

Fundamental to our collective security are the problems generated by the growing poverty and inequalities worldwide. The Canadian Labour Congress subscribes to the millennium development goals set out at the 1995 world summit for social development and adopted as a benchmark by the OECD. These goals include key targets to be achieved by 2015, most notably the reduction of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by half. If there are few who disagree with these targets, there is less agreement on the type and level of commitment necessary to achieve them.

In this light, we think the results from the recent UN conference on financing for development are disappointing. This is why we reject the emerging so-called consensus in some circles linked to international financial institutions about the solutions to the problems of the underdeveloped and underdevelopment.

Despite brave talk of governance and local ownership, market liberalization remains the core of this program. By definition, there is a very limited capacity to take advantage of market access or to attract foreign capital in countries that have poor social and physical infrastructures, in countries that are burdened by punishing levels of debt, in countries that have weak state institutions and are often undemocratic, corrupt, and lacking in the economic capacity to face foreign competition.

¿ (0915)

The financial liberalization that is encouraged, if not imposed, under structural adjustment programs exposes these countries to speculation-induced capital flight and further currency instability. As we have seen many times in the past several years, the instability fostered by financial liberalization strikes ever more often and affects even the most successful among emerging economies, wiping out in one swoop the economic progress of a generation.

Of course, it's workers and their families who are left to pick up the pieces after the fall. It's always the workers and their families and their communities that build and rebuild countries, whether it's after an earthquake, a war, or even a financial crisis. The workers, their families, and their communities are the only dynamic constant in all these historic dramas.

This is why we believe that any strategy to assist developing nations, and the lesser developed countries in particular, has to move away from the one-size-fits-all approach of the international financial institutions. Such strategy must recognize that developing nations must and should have the freedom to integrate to the global economy at their own pace.

I invite you to go to the list of recommendations we propose in the new development agenda section of our brief.

A few words now about NEPAD.

The labour movement in Canada welcomes Canada's insistence that Africa take centre stage at this year's G-8 summit. In light of the problems experienced by a large number of nations on that continent, Africa fully deserves special attention. However, many of the problems we have noted about the so-called Monterrey consensus also apply to the NEPAD initiative. Above all, however, we observe that there has been virtually no involvement of African civil society in the development of the NEPAD agenda.

Our counterparts in Africa have for many years called for a development agenda, but they're suspicious of the emphasis on trade as a solution to Africa's problems. African labour leaders note that African nations are already among the most open in the world, but this openness has most often been a liability to them more than an advantage.

African unions are supportive of a development agenda, a development agenda that would put emphasis on democracy, on debt relief, on the development of a social safety net, as well as on peace initiatives. They place high priority on fostering sub-regional and regional integration as intermediary steps to gradually integrate with the rest of the world. They observe that some priority has to be given to the health crisis related to the spread of HIV/AIDS, the empowerment of women, and the development of their human capital.

To summarize, success will come if we build from the ground up and listen to the African working families and take seriously the course they want to chart for themselves. In short, we believe the proposal has much merit, but its success will depend on how it will be implemented. We're more than willing to sit down with governments to ensure that such an initiative would best serve the interests of working Canadians in Canada, as well as around the world.

Thank you.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Georgetti.

Do you have any other speakers, or do we go directly to questioning?

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Questioning.

The Chair: Directly to questioning. We'll start then.

Mr. Day, are you ready?

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan--Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, sir, for the presentation.

There are a number of areas in which you would find that the official opposition is in concert with your concerns. As we have observed, certain requirements of the IMF on struggling nations is something that, depending on which particular item you look at, actually impairs or impedes development. We have some real concerns there. I'd like to further correspond with you on that in terms of the specifics and I would like to share with you some of the specifics that we see are imposed that result in more problems.

Just to let you know, in terms of the unconditional debt relief that you're suggesting, first of all, you're probably aware that one of the concerns the official opposition has is that we think that in any foreign affairs policy discussion it is insufficiently discussed in our House of Commons in an open way with members of Parliament, especially when it comes to voting on certain policies in anything that would approach a non-partisan way. So one of the things I'm pursuing and my colleagues are pursuing on any policies related to foreign affairs and foreign affair policy is that these be discussed openly in the House of Commons so that we can have more information. In discussions like this we can have witnesses like yourself.

Unconditional debt relief has never been voted on or discussed in an open way in the House of Commons. That's our main concern. Secondly, by the government simply moving and stating that direction of unconditional debt relief you risk rewarding bad management in those nations in which debt is being unconditionally forgiven. In effect, when you track back to times when debt is forgiven in foreign countries, the banks are usually taken care of in terms of making sure they get their interest payment.

I'm advising you that we are concerned about the debt levels. A blanket approach to unconditional and accelerated debt relief could in fact extend the very problem we would hope to see reduced in some of the emerging nations, which is strictly bad management and often tied to incredible levels of corruption, of course, in some of those countries.

Restructuring sovereign debt is something we would approach with a little more hope and optimism, but we do have concerns related to accelerated and unconditional debt relief.

Also, if I could ask for more specifics on.... You talk about market liberalization in your new development agenda. You say, and I'm referring to page 5, “Market liberalization can and does assist development in some circumstances, but most often it does the opposite”. I would suggest that flies in the face of economic history: that as a trend, as markets are liberalized and as freedom of trade is extended to more and more nations, in fact you have not just an exchange of product, an exchange of currency, but an exchange of ideas, which is most important in terms of furthering the causes of democracy, the rule of law, constitutional approaches to national issues.

I would just suggest that we would probably part some company in terms of saying most often it does just the opposite. In fact, history shows most often trade liberalization and market liberalization results in development and benefits to both partners, whether it's two neighbours across the street, two provinces, or people from one nation to another. In fact nations do not trade; people within nations trade. And it's that liberalization that will cause an extension of opportunities to the nations doing the trading.

Those are just some of the overviews I have.

¿ (0925)

I'll close with a comment on your reflections on African development, on NEPAD. We share with you some of the concerns you have talked about there. You haven't mentioned the effect of crime and the reluctance of a jurisdiction to deal with crime. In some experiences I've had in working with a province in South Africa in establishing a department of finance and fiscal principles that lead to the opportunities for wealth creation, the issue of crime is one the most significant when it comes to investment. People simply are not going to invest in areas where the uncertainty of crime exists. I agree with you that there are underlying causes, of course, to crime. We have to look at areas of education and at health, but that seems to be missing.

A final thought, Chairman, and then I'll ask--

The Chair: There won't be time for an answer.

Mr. Stockwell Day: We share your concerns related to the Middle East. The Canadian Alliance position is to see the Palestinian people, through a negotiated process, finally realize their own homeland, their own recognized homeland, and Israel to be able to live without being threatened by its neighbours. We also endorse Israel continuing its commitment to withdraw.

I don't see any comment here on terrorism, suicide bombing being inflicted upon Israel. You do comment on some of the other concerns related to the Palestinian one.

Those are my overviews. Any comments you might have time for now or in future correspondence would be appreciated.

The Chair: Mr. Georgetti, we try to keep within a five-minute time limit. The question is now into six minutes plus, which does not leave much time for an answer. Mr. Day has posed some questions, so maybe in response to some of the other questions you can work in the answers that you will not have the time for. I'll be lenient and give you a minute and a half to make some brief responses. See how you can work in the answers as we go along. You might have a second chance at it.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood you. Can I respond quickly, or do you want to go somewhere else?

The Chair: No, you can respond quickly. And as I said, don't feel that you have to give all the responses now; there might be some opportunity later, as we go along, to reflect on Mr. Day's question.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I will be very brief.

I would like to accept your invitation to have more dialogue with you on some of these important issues. I just want to point out a stark fact and reality.

Since 1980, since the growth and trade liberalization strategy has been played globally, in both the developed and developing nations growth rates have been lower worldwide than they were before we liberalized our trade. So the actual history you referred to doesn't support your argument. With unrestrained trade liberalization as it's happened since the 1980s--this is a fact--in both the G-8 and every other country in the world, growth rates are lower rather than higher as a result.

So people and economies have not benefited from that unrestrained liberalized trade strategy. That's why we say that we have to find a better way to add more components to expanding trade than just financial freedom for banks to make huge profits or investors to make their profits. There has to be more development-oriented trade that has rules attached to it that also sees society benefit from that expansion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Paquette.

¿ (0930)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. It is always a great pleasure to have the Canadian Labour Congress appear before us. It gives us an opportunity to explore in greater depths certain topics which, unfortunately, are not always adequately covered by this committee.

You spoke about the introduction of a tax on currency transactions. Of course, I am in full agreement on that. According to ATTAC France, such a tax would bring in approximately twice as much as the amounts spent on development assistance throughout the world. I would like to know whether the Canadian Labour Congress has considered how this huge amount of money could be used for development purposes. As you know, Vicente Fox has put forward the idea of a social development fund; this is an idea we support. I would like you to comment on this.

I think you make some very important points with respect to the market access initiative. I am pleased to see that the CLC's approach is not to refuse access to the Canadian market for the least developed countries. However, you are calling for conversion and retraining programs for the industries that will be affected. I would like to know whether you have identified the sectors that could potentially have problems, and the measures that could be introduced to help them out. I understand that your support for this initiative is conditional on the establishment of measures of this type. Is that correct? We need to know this, so that we can take it into account in our report.

Finally, you ask that preferential market access be conditional on fundamental respect for labour rights. I would like you to speak about the importance and feasibility of introducing compliance with labour rights into all these trade initiatives. I asked the same question of Mr. Laliberté at the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and International Investments. In Canada, some people think that parallel agreements, such as those we have under the North American Free Trade Agreement, provide an adequate defence of labour rights. I would like you to comment on this.

We often hear that the governments of the least developed countries do not want this type of “social” clause because they see them as a type of protectionism. I would like to hear what you think about that.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Ken Georgetti: In terms of your first question, I'm going to ask Monsieur Laliberté to answer on the use of the social development fund. But let me talk about our position on giving preferential treatment to the least developed countries for market access to Canada, provided they adopt the core labour standards of the ILO.

We firmly believe that if you look at successful economies, if you look at the G-8 economies, one of the features that makes the domestic economies in the G-8 so strong, and a feature of a G-8 nation, is that they have the ability and reasonable labour laws so that workers can empower themselves and take a share of the economic benefits of the advancing economy and advance their lives and the culture of their country.

Our experience, though, when we advanced this argument logically in the world theatre, was that particularly the developing nations would argue with us that this is a forum of protectionism. We are concerned about that allegation because the last thing we want to do is restrict the ability of other countries to enjoy the same standard of living and culture we've developed through expanded trade. After all, I argue that of all the G-8 nations, Canada is the most reliant on trade. For such a small nation, we have a huge trading nation, and we've benefited very highly from that. Our argument on why we've benefited from it is that we were able to negotiate collectively with rights to organize and bargain with employers the benefits of that trade. Had we not done that, I would argue that Canada would not be nearly as successful a nation as we are.

Again, it's hard to make those cases with countries that are struggling with huge burdens of debt, and the consequential pressures that come from international financial institutions and other governments for them to relax their rules more in order to pay off their debts and be burdened by that.

This is a bit of an answer to Mr. Day. The number one cause of crime, in my opinion, is poverty. In nations that are developing, poverty is epidemic and people will do things because of desperation that they otherwise wouldn't do. I think Canada could serve a great purpose by opening up our markets to developing countries, provided that the benefits of opening up the markets serve to help develop the nation's people, not just the financial institutions.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Mr. Laliberté.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Laliberté (Senior Economist, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think you gave a very good summary of the situation with respect to the Tobin tax. We see two potential uses for this tool. First, the tax could vary depending on the circumstances. This would give us some control over speculative capital flows. In addition, as you mentioned, the tax could raise some very significant amounts of money. The estimates ranged from the amount already being spent on development assistance—$60 billion a year—to twice as much, depending on the effectiveness of the tax. If the tax is effective, theoretically, the number of transactions will drop. So we are talking about very significant amounts.

Like many others, particularly the ATTAC group, we are sympathetic to the idea that this money could be used by international, UN-related organizations to achieve some very specific objectives, such as those set by the Forum, Summit and Millennium Assembly. Those objectives are access to primary education for all, and measures to address the health crisis that exists in a number of parts of the world, as you are well aware.

In this respect, we are making progress. Everyone may have some very good ideas on this. We think it is important to establish the principle from the outset. Moreover, we know that the Parliament of Canada has already voted on this in a very progressive way. Now that the idea is getting a little more support outside Canada, it would be good for the government to take this opportunity to push the issue a little.

With respect to market access, you were talking about the sectors that would probably feel the effects of such a program. In light of the state of the least developed economies, we are talking about light industry, particularly the garment industry. We know that people who work in these industries are not well paid, and do not have the best working conditions, despite all our efforts. In our view, it is therefore clear that the government should... Ever since Canada signed various free trade treaties, we have been promised adjustment measures for people who are adversely affected. Brian Mulroney promised them back in 1986, and nothing ever happened. Rather, during the 90s, we saw steep reductions in employment insurance and the disappearance of welfare just when people needed these programs the most.

We think there must be programs of this type in order to legitimize the opening of our borders to trade.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We talk about corruption and the underground economy on many occasions when we discuss third world or developing countries' problems. Can you elaborate on your relationship with the third world labour unions and what kind of reaction you get from them when you raise the issue of an underground economy and the corruption of government officials in those countries?

¿ (0940)

Mr. Steven Benedict (Director of International Department, Canadian Labour Congress): The Canadian Labour Congress is part of an international network of trade unions--the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions--with regional organizations, so we do indeed spend a substantial amount of time relating to our colleagues around the world.

Part of the issue of corruption you refer to is linked to a question of access to development. The reality is that, in particular, in poorer countries the governments are subjected to a lot of pressures, and the trade unions are left to deal with that--country after country. It doesn't stop the trade union movements in those countries from struggling for the same respect and the same rights workers struggle for in Canada. There are guidelines. A lot of work has been done at the OECD on the issue of governance and corruption, and it is starting to have some impact at the level of the OECD.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As members of Parliament, we've travelled throughout the world to many countries. I've done my travelling. Every time we discuss the corruption issue with foreign governments or their representatives, they mention the fact that a police officer, for example, gets a very low salary. One way a police officer has to subsidize his or her salary is to stop you for no reason and make a comment like “I have a family, I have kids”. Okay, here's $5. How do you overcome this? You blame the guy who's asking you for it, but at the same time, as a human being, you say, “Well, the guy is hungry. What do you expect him to do?”

Government doesn't give adequate pay for their work and the guy has to survive. How do you strike the balance? What reaction do you get when you mention these things to the other labour unions?

Mr. Steven Benedict: Exactly as you point out, the reality is that if people pretend to pay workers, workers have a tendency to pretend to work. It's really quite simple. If you pay workers adequate wages that allow them a certain level of comfort and well-being and allow them to send their children to school, workers tend to work a lot harder. This is the point Mr. Georgetti was making.

The OECD has clearly established that those countries that have some respect for core labour standards and have systems for proper industrial relations are the countries that tend to fare much better in the economy. The disparity of income tends to be lower, and as a result you tend to see somewhat less of the kind of corruption you're referring to. So the answer is that if you pay people adequately, you will tend to have less corruption.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian.

Ms. Nitoslawska.

Ms. Anna Nitoslawska (International Program Administrator, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you, Madam Chair.

On the issue of corruption, there are always two sides. We talk about governments being engaged in malpractice, but I think we also need to look at the role that multinational corporations and foreign investors have played in actually fostering corruption in those countries as well. It is incumbent upon us here in Canada to ask what kind of role Canadian companies, Canadian multinationals, have indeed played in this regard as well. Well, not only Canadian companies and corporations, but others. We need to make sure there is more transparency and accountability.

That can only happen in developing countries if you have a strong civil society. That can only happen when you have a strong labour movement that will demand accountability and transparency from the government and from other governments that may be supporting and giving aid. There has to be accountability as well in terms of foreign investment--how it goes, who it goes to, and who actually benefits from it.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

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

I too want to join in welcoming the witnesses this morning. Because we only have five minutes and I have a lot more than five minutes of questions, perhaps what I'll do is just put my questions in three areas and then if Mr. Georgetti or the other witnesses could respond, that would be great.

The first question is just a follow-up on the issue of market access and the market access initiative. This is a very important area. Certainly we've heard repeated calls from NGOs like Partnership Africa and others about the importance of having access to Canadian markets and markets of other countries, particularly in the area of agricultural products and textiles. You're saying that should only be granted if the countries in question respect fundamental labour rights.

In the annex to your brief, you go beyond that. You say that preferential market access is contingent on the respect of fundamental human rights, including core labour rights. So you go even further there. I'm wondering if you could perhaps just give us some sense of what that would mean in practical terms for Africa. How many countries in Africa, according to the ILO, for example, would in fact meet the standards that you are asking be applied? I think we as a committee should know just how high the bar is.

Also, could you just elaborate a little bit on the...? I'm not sure whether your position is calling for respect for fundamental human rights, as the annex suggests, or strictly the core labour rights, as the major brief would suggest. That's the first question.

Secondly, could you talk a bit about what the involvement of the Canadian Labour Congress will be in the context of the upcoming G-8 summit in Kananaskis? The congress played an active role at the Quebec summit and the people's summit. What role will the CLC be playing at Kananaskis?

I'll put those two questions out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

On a serious note, I feel the committee would benefit from the answer to Mr. Robinson's first question, because that's an important issue that you've highlighted in your brief.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Any nation that is a member of the ILO by membership is committed to the core labour standards contained therein.

One of my staff might have that answer, but I would suspect that not many African nations adhere to the core labour standards of the ILO.

In terms of the argument about granting preferential market access contingent on respect for fundamental labour rights, as we point out in our brief, those policies already exist in some measure in the United States and in the European Union under their GSP trade agreements.

I'm not sure that any African nations right now pick up the core labour standards. Even our country hasn't got the greatest record in the world on respecting the commitment to the ILO on the basic core labour standards.

Our argument, though, is based on a notion that at least more of the proceeds of the development would go more directly to workers if they had a chance to negotiate for themselves. The trickle-down theory doesn't seem to get much water on the people at the bottom of that pole.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Please understand that if you're saying that none of the African countries meet the core labour standards at this point, then you're saying no to preferential market access.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Well, we are.

Mr. Steven Benedict: No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That seems to be what you're saying.

Mr. Steven Benedict: No, that's not what we're saying. We're saying that there are core labour standards that have been adopted by all member countries to the ILO, and the question has to be one about what these core labour standards represent. They represent some very fundamental principles that are not much at issue. I don't know that anyone around this room would be in favour of child labour. I don't know that anyone in this room would support forced labour. I think those are fairly simple and straight-forward principles.

The question then becomes how do they get used in order to provide proper market access, which should mean a road towards development for the countries in question? So the ILO does provide, for example, technical assistance to countries to live up to these very fundamental principles, so the benefits of market access don't go to sweatshop exporters, but to proper businesses that have proper industrial relations, which lead to better wages and better living conditions.

So the question isn't so much of the conditionality of core labour standards as it is a question of using core labour standards, and the conditionality should be that core labour standards are used to promote development.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Svend, let me summarize it this way in a sentence. There has to be some certainty for the open market access we propose.

We think our nation needs to say to these countries that there has to be some certainty that the benefits from increased market access will accrue to the workers, which will then accrue to their families and to their communities and the tax base of the country in which they live. If that certainty is in a trading agreement, we should look and work toward preferential market access for those countries that meet that basic single commitment. After that, we can work on the broader issues of core labour standards.

We want to see some certainty that workers will get that money in their pockets so that they can start to develop their own economies.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And on Kananaskis...?

Ms. Patricia Blackstaff: The Canadian Labour Congress has taken on the role of coordinating the activities of its other trade union affiliates in events leading up to Kananaskis. At this point we feel our role is very much to try to bring the concerns, particularly of African trade unionists, to as broad a group of Canadians as we possibly can.

In the weeks leading up to Kananaskis, a number of our trade union colleagues from Africa will be coming to Canada. They will be meeting with government officials, trade union officials, and the broader Canadian public at various meetings and public events we're organizing.

In the week prior to that, we'll be involved in a number of events in the Calgary area, specifically a counter-conference. We'll be bringing trade union members from Africa to speak to the broader Canadian public about their concerns on both the NEPAD initiative and broader development issues.

The counter-conference deals with such issues as education, health, and security--many of the issues being discussed at the summit itself. Our own members will be involved in other events in Calgary, such as a rally and the solidarity village, along with other social activists in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now turn to Dr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Georgetti and your colleagues, thank you for being here today.

What do you think of the commitment of African nations to the NEPAD, which is a wonderful document in and of itself? I draw your attention to Zimbabwe, which I think is the litmus test for the NEPAD. A lot of the authors of the NEPAD--Mbeki, Museveni, Dos Santos, Obasanjo and others--were basically tripping over themselves to congratulate a person who, in my view, should be tried for crimes against humanity.

My second question is on trade liberalization plus plus, as I call it. We must have not only trade liberalization. Do we not also need commitment to a fair tax policy, where those revenues go into primary health, education, and sustainable environmental policies, and a real commitment to rooting out corruption at the highest levels? It has to start from the top.

Finally, what key reforms do you think CIDA must engage in? As you know, we've spent billions and billions of dollars on the continent of Africa. These countries have immense wealth in the ground, yet the people endure some of the most grinding poverty on the planet. What CIDA reforms do you think we ought to engage in or advise the government to employ to ensure that our aid money will be targeted to have the maximal effect on those who need it the most?

Thank you.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Mr. Benedict.

Mr. Steven Benedict: First, we not only share your opinion, but our counterparts, the trade union congress in Zimbabwe, also broadly share your opinion on Zimbabwe. That indeed raises a serious question about how reflective NEPAD is of the reality on the African continent.

Ms. Anna Nitoslawska: On the commitment of African nations, as Mr. Georgetti said, we believe the issue of partnership needs to be strengthened, but not only partnership as it is in NEPAD right now between African nations and developed industrialized nations. The notion of partnership should be much stronger between African governments and civil society.

Right now NEPAD is indeed African-owned, but it is owned by African governments. We believe that is not enough. We further believe the Canadian government has a role to encourage this dialogue to take place. We welcome the conference CIDA is organizing in Montreal on May 3 and 4 between Canadian and African civil society.

We also appreciate the fact that eleven of our trade union colleagues from Africa will be at the conference, including nine women. I would like to add that when we talk of civil society, one of the groups most marginalized in this process is women, particularly women workers. So we believe that Canada, through CIDA, has a role to play in strengthening the capacity of civil society to participate in that particular process.

Mr. Keith Martin: I just want to add one thing. This is a plea to you to please put pressure on our government and, through your labour congresses internationally, on the G-8 countries to commit to an arms registry for small arms, the reduction of trade barriers, and conditional debt relief--as some of us would prefer--for highly indebted countries, though I know you prefer non-conditional debt relief.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: If I can add one more thing, we'd like to see our government support us in insisting that pension legislation and corporations acts be changed, so that pension plan trustees, investment managers, and corporations have to disclose the conditions they put in place when they invest internationally, to ensure that they're not participating in or condoning corruption in countries where they do business.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): You talked about the role that Canadian companies may or may not have played in encouraging corruption in the developing countries. I'm sure the Canadian Labour Congress is aware of legislation that Canada adopted--I believe it was in December 2000--in ratifying an international agreement on the issue of corruption.

Canadian industry undertook a major educational campaign to educate parliamentarians on the fact that when they want to do business, corruption is a problem, which they did not want to participate in. I would say that was the majority view. There may be some that don't share that view. There is thus a real effort on the part of the Canadian private sector to support any and all measures to reduce and eliminate corruption internationally.

The question I wanted to ask is twofold. First, on the issue of removal of trade barriers or quotas that may exist and that allow for a certain amount of trade in Canada, you mentioned the apparel or garment industry. I received a letter recently from the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Association, I believe that's what they're called. They made the point that they have concerns. If Canada opens up its trade--removes the quotas that exist now for some developing countries--without taking other measures to ensure that those countries will continue to have access, countries such as China will simply flood the markets and take over. Is that a concern? Do the recommendations you've made in your brief address that specific issue?

Second, we talk about the issue of corruption in the private sector. You've also mentioned that living conditions, to a certain extent, even encourage corruption within civil society. The labour movement is part of civil society. We also know that there have been trade unions, for instance, in the United States that have been very well known for their corrupt practices. Without mentioning any.... Does my parliamentary privilege extend to committee meetings?

À (1000)

The Chair: You're on your own.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If you have corrupt practices in developing countries, because of poverty, etc., then you probably also have a certain amount of corrupt practices within the trade union movement as well. I'd like to know, internationally, what measures or projects or programs does the labour movement have to address these issues?

The Chair: Leave some time for the answer.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'm taking Stan and Mr. Day as examples.

The Chair: All right, who is going to handle corruption within the trade union movement?

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I'm going to ask Pierre to answer part of that question.

Let me be clear on this issue, in which you refer to business as sterling.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I didn't say “sterling”.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Even in Canada and even in the United States, where there all sorts of checks and balances, we have had Bre-X, Enron, and the savings and loans scandals. Until there is a concerted effort and an insistence on the part of governance and governments that certain standards and levels of behaviour will neither be tolerated nor condoned, and in fact be punished, we will not stop that level of corruption.

In terms of our own organizations--I can speak only for the Canadian labour movement--I will guarantee you we are the most democratic, upfront, and honest movement I've seen.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I just interrupt?

In no way did I want my comments to be taken as an opinion of the Canadian labour movement. I was addressing the issue of corruption in the developing countries, the fact that it is endemic, and that therefore one could safely conclude it's also a problem within the trade--

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I don't think you can make that leap of faith on a hypothesis like that. The trade unions we deal with at the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions are democratic, forward thinking, and representative of their members. Beyond that, I don't think you can make that correlation, frankly.

Pierre.

Mr. Pierre Laliberté: On your first point,

[Translation]

with respect to market access and its consequences for the garment industry, as you know, there are between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs at stake. So we are not talking about a minor detail. The most important issue from our point of view is the fate of these workers. That is our job.

We would therefore like the government to make a genuine effort to establish some labour adjustment programs to ensure that the people who have to adapt because of trade liberalization with these countries have some real options. If there were full employment programs and worker retraining programs, we might have a basis for agreement. As our president said clearly, we are prepared to sit down and discuss this matter.

That said, it is not the least developed countries that cause the real problems for our industry. As you said yourself, China is the problem. That raises some serious issues for us. Clearly, this initiative does not target China, but China will obviously benefit from it. When we look at the situation of workers in that country, we find that it is truly dismal. Once again, we confront head-on the issue that trade liberalization has no respect for social standards.

Thank you.

À (1005)

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

You have a very thorough brief here. You have many points that as a committee we would want to further explore as we continue on the road, hearing from Canadians and hearing from some of your associates. And there'll be opportunity again for input.

We'd like to share your brief. If I may go outside of the parameters here, we have a number of the African consular and ambassadorial corps in the room. We'd like to share your brief with them, because I think you've put forward some important issues that they might like to read.

We want to thank you for appearing before us, and we want to thank all of your affiliates who take the time to come before our committee, because you amplify for us some of the things we need to make recommendations on.

Thank you, Mr. Georgetti, Mr. Benedict, Mr. Laliberté, and Ms. Nitoslawska.

Before continuing, members, we have before us consideration of the 11th report of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment--that's the WTO. That report was circulated, and many of you have it before you. I'll ask Mr. Mac Harb, the chair of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, to make very brief statements about this, and we'll deal with it at some future time.

Thank you.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This report is the result of a request by the Minister for International Trade to the committee to ask the committee to look at the issues surrounding the next round of WTO negotiations and to make suggestions to the government on some key issues. The committees have held hearings and met with witnesses. Today is the deadline for the subcommittee to submit the report to the main committee, and we have done so.

Without going through the recommendations, as you probably realize, Madam Chair, all of the members were given the opportunity to give their input. We passed the report unanimously at the last meeting, and one of the things we have agreed on is to allow a dissenting opinion to be presented by members of the opposition parties should they wish to do so.

I understand that one of my colleagues had some comments on two of the recommendations indicating the committee had agreed to that. I would suggest we approve the report with the understanding that I will go to the minutes and find in the minutes what my colleague had suggested and ensure that those changes--those specific two recommendations my colleague has mentioned--are incorporated.

It is my submission to you, Madam Chair, that the report be approved today, so it could be tabled in the House at the earliest possible opportunity, with the provision that my colleague be given a chance to have a dissenting opinion.

Also, it is my hope that once this report is tabled in the House the government will be asked to respond to the recommendations in the report.

À (1010)

The Chair: Mr. Harb, could we go then to Mr. Paquette?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Chair, as the chair of our subcommittee said, we agreed on all of the recommendations. However, as I recall, we had agreed on a different wording for recommendations 28 and 29.

In the case of recommendation 28, we had agreed on the following wording:

That the federal government propose to WTO members that the International Labour Organization and the United Nations Environment Program be allowed to contribute their specialized expertise to the negotiating process.

As I recall, everyone agreed on this wording.

With respect to recommendation 29, since I am a man of compromise, I had agreed to removing the references to labour and the environment, because we agreed that democracy covered all of these points, but I had asked that the Government of Canada promote the introduction of these issues into the WTO agreements.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Chair, it is in the English version. I think it's not in the French version. I will make sure that it is reflected in the French version. We have incorporated that. My apology about the translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Madam Chair, of course I maintain my support for all the recommendations. I had told the subcommittee that I would make a complementary report on consultation of the provinces, a subject not covered in the report.

[English]

The Chair: All right. So there is a friendly agreement here that this report will be rectified, so that we can get concurrence. Then I'll ask the question.

Is your comment on the same topic, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, it's on the same topic. I want to indicate that we will be filing--and I appreciate Mr. Harb's support for the process here--a very brief dissenting report. As Mr. Harb will appreciate, we have taken a fundamentally different approach on this issue. It won't be a lengthy dissenting report, but it will highlight a number of issues in which we have a different perspective. So that will be done as well.

I also want to take this opportunity while I have the floor, Madam Chair, to indicate that the motion for which I have given notice concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Health Organization as an observer was to have come before this meeting today. However, following consultation with the chair, and because I know we have a number of African ambassadors here, and we want to have the fullest possible opportunity to have a dialogue with them, I have agreed that the motion will now come before the committee on Thursday. I want to give notice that the motion will be coming on Thursday.

The Chair: Thank you. I always appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Robinson.

I'll now call the question.

Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I would like to make one final comment. The clerk and I spoke about this, but I want to ensure that the title of the report in French contains the abbreviation OMC, because the English version does refer to the WTO. I hope that the French version is better than the draft we had. I stopped making corrections on page 13. There were many mistakes.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harb, thank you.

Shall the report be adopted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the chair or her designate table the report in the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 109, shall the government's response be requested?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Mac Harb: Madam Chair, as we move on, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee, including the opposition members, for the excellent cooperation they have shown; to thank the staff of the committee, who have done outstanding work; to thank our witnesses; and to thank the department, which was available every time we asked them to appear before us.

With this, I want to thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I also want to be clear that the two dissenting opinions should be permitted--

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: --and that they should be tabled with the clerk in the two official languages by two o'clock Thursday--

À (1015)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, it will be tabled, and obviously we would expect the clerk to ensure the translation as usual.

The Chair: --and that the chair be authorized to require editorial changes without altering the substance of the report--which is what you're saying.

Thank you.

The dissenting opinion should be done by two o'clock Thursday. Is that agreed?

Mr. Robinson, you will be ready, and Mr. Paquette, you will be ready by two o'clock on Thursday.

Thank you. I so appreciate when you are agreeable.

Mr. Day.

Mr. Stockwell Day: Just on the question of dissenting opinion, not yet having contacted our representative on the report, I'd just reserve the right to do that. That may or may not be necessary.

The Chair: Is it agreed that Mr. Day has the right to a dissenting opinion should he require?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: As a member of the subcommittee, I would simply like to highlight the work done by our chair, because we did an outstanding amount of work in two months. He was our pillar of strength. Moreover, I see him as a man of compromise.

[English]

The Chair: Kudos to Mr. Harb. It was a good job, and we deeply appreciate it. It's a very thorough document, and the committee again salutes you for this piece of work.

We have one more matter before we go to our visitors--please bear with us. We have consideration of the second report of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development. That is a report on Zimbabwe from the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Ms. Beth Phinney, chair.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Madam Chair, I would like to table this report. I think the committee has already seen it, or at least the steering committee has, and they've changed it, so it's just to accept the minor changes that were made. This is our report on the situation in Zimbabwe.

The Chair: Thank you.

All in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: There is no opposition.

Thank you very much, and thank you for the work and time. I know the committee had to go into redrafting as the situation developed and changed in Zimbabwe leading to the election, after the election, and also the report of the panel.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you.

The Chair: Shall the report be adopted and tabled in the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the African ambassadors to the committee. It is an honour to welcome to our committee some distinguished representatives of African countries who have been closely associated with the genesis and implementation process of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. This is the promising initiative of African leaders that will be a primary focus for the discussion among the G-8 leaders this June at the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta.

As our Minister of Foreign Affairs and former chair of this committee, Bill Graham, assured us last Thursday, a group of African leaders, along with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, will also be directly involved in the meetings considering the NEPAD. So Africa's voice will be heard very strongly during the Canadian summit.

Having travelled with the Prime Minister to Africa earlier this month, I can attest to the Prime Minister's strong commitment to ensuring that Africa's objectives, as articulated so compellingly by Africans themselves in the NEPAD, will be a primary focus for the Kananaskis summit. Canada wants an effective G-8 action plan for Africa to emerge from that meeting.

This committee decided some time ago to look at the relationship with Africa in the context of G-8 summit preparations. That study objective was subsequently reinforced by the Prime Minister's personal request that we consult with Canadians and that we report the findings to him. To that end, the committee has held a number of hearings here in Ottawa and we've been to Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and we continue to receive submissions that testify to a passionate concern for building a better development relationship with Africa.

Next week we'll be completing our hearings process in western Canada and Ontario. Benefiting from the best ideas of Canadians across the country, the committee's aim is to make focused recommendations for G-8 action in the report we will be tabling later this month.

Today is also an important and timely opportunity to reflect in our process an engagement with African representatives who can speak directly to the challenges that Africa's governments are seeking to address through the NEPAD framework. It is essential that we hear your perspectives, your priorities, and your expectations of what is achievable at the summit in two months' time.

Let me therefore welcome Excellency André Jaquet, High Commissioner of the Republic of South Africa in Canada; Excellency Berhanu Dibaba, Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in Canada; Her Excellency Sallama Mahmoud Shaker, Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt to Canada; Excellency Youcef Yousfi, Ambassador of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria to Canada; Excellency Pierre Diouf, Ambassador of the Republic of Senegal; and Excellency Philémon Yunji Yang, High Commissioner for the Republic of Cameroon.

À (1020)

Welcome. It's always a delight to have you with us in Parliament, but it is especially gracious of you to give of your time to be witnesses to this committee. Thank you.

Who starts?

Senegal, Excellency Pierre Diouf.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Ladies first, my colleagues agree.

The Chair: All right.

Excellency Shaker.

Her Excellency Sallama Mahmoud Shaker (Ambassador of the Arab Republic of Egypt to Canada): Thank you very much indeed, honourable Jean Augustine, distinguished parliamentarians, excellencies here, ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed my honour and privilege to be present here today.

In addressing the summit meeting held in Paris on 9 February 2002, upon the invitation of President Jacques Chirac, the President of Egypt, Mohammad Hosni Mubarak, emphasized the importance of NEPAD as an initiative that has been developed by the African leaders to achieve sustainable growth. The initiative mapped out proposed joint projects according to African needs on regional and continental levels in order to eradicate poverty, which is a root cause of the despair and frustration that inflame terrorism.

President Mubarak underlined the importance of trade, and I quote:

“Trade is a priority in the NEPAD agenda branching activities including accessibility of African products to foreign markets, diversifying exports, and supplying Africa with technical and financial support to enhance the economic progress.”

President Mubarak stressed the importance of advanced countries honouring the obligations they made at the World Trade Organization's fourth ministerial conference. The developed countries had pledged to boost the institutional and negotiatory status of the developing countries within the WTO. President Mubarak said that the development and modernization are one essential element to improve chances of African export access to international markets. This requires, at the national level, introducing new industries, upgrading the native African industries in which the African countries enjoy some privileges, such as the agricultural industries that can be improved.

Egypt urged observance of the particularities of African development, especially in the agricultural field, whose yield accounts for 35% of the African GDP and 40% of the continent's exports. The sector employs 70% of the African labour force, noted President Mubarak. Hence, the donor countries, as well as the international development agencies, are urged to cooperate in forging a mechanism to address the debt problems and their impact on the efforts aiming to boost the development rate in Africa, especially during international financial and economic crises.

The president underlined the importance that this mechanism would not add restrictions on the developing countries that might inhibit the development programs. Moreover, Egypt voiced hope that the new initiative would attract more financial resources for Africa, whether in the form of official assistance or contribution and investment from the private sector. In this regard, the president welcomed the contribution declared by Canada and the other G-8 members. Egypt welcomes and urges further G-8 support for African efforts.

In the fields of political and democratic reforms, there is a need to take into account the cultural and religious identities of the African countries. After all, the NEPAD, as created by the African leaders, commits to good governance as a way to ensure stronger economic sustainable growth.

À (1025)

However, Egypt and the other African countries reject hindering the flow of economic aid under the pretext of transparency and good governance. Achieving the goals of development initiative in Africa requires agreement on priorities and introducing mechanisms necessary for implementation and follow-up.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Excellency.

Excellency Pierre Diouf, welcome.

[Translation]

His Excellency Pierre Diouf (Ambassador of the Republic of Senegal to Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to thank you very much for inviting us to be here this morning to tell you about the reasons for NEPAD from the point of view of the countries of Africa.

As you know, there have been two main initiatives, the one put forward by the presidents of South Africa, Algeria and Nigeria, the Millennium Plan, and the initiative put forward by Senegal, the Omega Plan. NEPAD resulted from the fusion of these two plans. Consequently, NEPAD became an African initiative.

NEPAD is original in that for the first time, donors and international institutions have agreed in principle to support this plan developed by and for Africans for the development of Africa. This is not the first such plan, but it is the first time that the international community has expressed its unanimous support for this African initiative. The Africans said that they were going to be in charge of development in Africa; they were going to be responsible. It is important to emphasize this point.

The African heads of State launched this initiative after concluding that after 40 years of independence, effort and particularly technical assistance for Africa, African development was slow in taking off. We therefore decided we had to change our strategy and do things differently from the way in which they had been done to date. Africans had the courage to assume a good share of the blame, by saying that they were largely responsible for the poor state of African development. They said that they were going to do something else, and adopt a new approach.

In order to do that, the Africans highlighted the number of sectors with inadequate infrastructure, because in this area, intra-African trade was almost non-existent. African trade is in a north-south direction, from Africa to the former colonial powers.

Secondly, in the area of agriculture, despite its wealth, Africa cannot be self-sufficient in food. This is extremely serious.

There's also the problem of education. Africa is reported to be the continent where the levels of education are the lowest. Barely 48% of African children go to school, chiefly because of the lack of infrastructure: schools, teachers and educational supplies.

Then there is the whole issue of health. We need not dwell at length on the ravages still being caused by AIDS. However, too often we forget about malaria, which is doing more harm than AIDS in Africa, despite everything we hear.

Basically, we have to stress the fact that products from Africa have a very hard time getting into the markets of the developed countries. It has been written and said numerous times that if the developed countries were to allow African products into their markets, we would no longer require aid.

That is why the African countries have come together around NEPAD and have proposed this initiative to the international community, while acknowledging that most of the work will be done by Africans themselves. For the most part, Africans are expecting private investment from the international community. In order to achieve that, Africans are prepared to take the necessary measures. They have started to do this to ensure the safety of these private investments.

First, as regards the legal system, they want to ensure that everyone is equal before the law.

À (1030)

Next, they will ensure that those who invest in Africa will be able, if they wish, to repatriate the profits they make in Africa.

On the subject of profits, I must tell you that it has been shown that the return on investment is much higher in Africa than elsewhere in the world. In Africa, the figure is approximately 30%. That is significant.

Very often, we imagine that Africa is on the other side of the world from Canada. For example, it takes seven hours to go from New York to Dakar, in Africa. Africa is much closer than some other parts of the world.

All the countries of Africa see NEPAD as their own program. We open our arms to you; we must work together because the development of Africa is also in the interest of the industrialized world. This is a market to be developed.

Madam Chair, those are the introductory remarks I wanted to make not only on behalf of Senegal, but also on behalf of all the countries of Africa.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Excellency.

His Excellency Philémon Yunji Yang (High Commissioner of the Republic of Cameroon in Canada): Madam Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting us.

My country sees NEPAD, the new fund initiative for Africa's development, as a significant opportunity for African countries to relate in a different way to developed countries. We also believe that through NEPAD it will be possible to do many things that we couldn't do in the past.

However, country-specific or national projects, in our view, are not fundamentally what NEPAD should be involved in, nor the sorts of projects that should be funded under the process of NEPAD. From my country's perspective, we would be very interested in projects that concern the whole continent, the regions, or the sub-regions. Nation-specific projects are better taken care of by nations themselves, or on a basis where they might find funding elsewhere.

The first thing on our list is infrastructure for transportation--roads and railways. It would be wonderful if we could in Africa have a real railroad going from Cape Town to Cairo, or have one from Dakar to Addis Ababa. That would make Africa integrate itself--its economy and its political systems--better than ever before.

We also think of energy projects--hydroelectric installations. Apparently, investors and industrialists look for places where they can find abundant and cheap sources of energy. Abundant energy is a prerequisite of industrialization. If we do not have good sources of energy, it will be impossible to do anything. Yet we have the potential to have energy projects that can involve a number of countries at the same time, especially when you are dealing with energy resources that don't go away, such as hydroelectricity.

Information and communication technology is a very important area too. Through the NEPAD we could fund projects that involve the continent, regions, or sub-regions. If we can break the digital divide, we will be able to do a lot of things and open new doors to African countries that don't have an opportunity to do a lot of things on their own.

Another area where NEPAD might be very useful to us is in research centres, centres of excellence, and specialized universities. If we could fund a few universities and bring the best specialists from all over the world, they would be training people who probably wouldn't leave Africa. Part of the problem with the brain drain now is that many people, many students, leave Africa and never return. I don't think there is anything wrong in having Africans elsewhere, but if they could serve on the African continent, that would be our priority. In fact, research centres of excellence could delve into domains that are generally neglected, such as malaria or even the health problems we have.

Environmental protection projects are also a priority for us. No one country can protect the environment in any part of the world. Environmental protection has become an international problem, which should always be faced on a continental or regional basis. This could include the protection of forest biodiversity, marine and coastal ecology, and in fact reduce pollution, which is becoming increasingly a problem for us. I daresay that environmental degradation generally ends up creating a lot of misery and causing underdevelopment.

There is another problem that could be seen as a national problem but has become an international problem. That is HIV-AIDS prevention. Whereas treating an AIDS patient might be a local or domestic problem for one country, AIDS prevention or HIV prevention in our view has become an international problem that can only be handled at the level of the continent or the regions or the sub-regions.

À (1035)

Prevention should never be seen as an easy thing, because of the enormous amounts of money needed to be invested in prevention.

We also have peace and security programs. Peace and security are the preconditions of trade, and even of democratization, good governance, economic development, and poverty reduction.

Africa needs international policies at the level of Africa in order to deal with the arms trade, which is a real problem. We might even think of treaties of non-aggression or conflict resolution.

In our view, constructing peace and security in that continent will become a monumental enterprise. At the end of the day, the African nations must give themselves economic strength and economic survival; otherwise, Africa might become irrelevant to the world community.

We live in a world where you don't succeed if economically you are not viable. You don't really count. If NEPAD funds sub-regional, regional, and continental projects, we should be able to embrace all the opportunities open to us and very much make out of the new African Union a union that would lead us to political integration and even to economic integration.

I will say that poverty reduction, trade, good governance, and everything that is good cross-fertilize each other.

I would conclude by saying that a hungry, sick, and insecure person is likely to disrespect even the greatest democratic values in the long run.

Thank you very much.

À (1040)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Your Excellency.

We're doing a tour of Africa here. We've gone from Egypt to Senegal, and from Cameroon to Ethiopia.

We'll go to South Africa, and His Excellency André Jaquet.

His Excellency André Jaquet (High Commissioner of the Republic of South Africa in Canada): Thank you very much, Chairperson. It's the time that the south should speak as well.

I must thank you, Chairperson, and many people in Canada for the quite fantastic support that Canada has given in coordinating the NEPAD initiative and the Genoa Plan for Africa.

We welcome the efforts of Ambassador Fowler. We welcome the personal commitment of the Prime Minister, and we welcome that this is a multi-partisan approach. It is not just from one quarter.

My colleagues have spoken very eloquently about Africa. I will limit myself to some of the things that South Africa is doing and what we expect out of the whole process.

South Africa is one of 54 countries. It has no special ownership of NEPAD, as is sometimes said in the press. If at times we take the lead, it's because we've been blessed with more resources than some other countries in Africa. We're also fortunate to have benefited from the sacrifices that other countries in Africa have made so we could reach a democracy.

Talking of sacrifices, the Canadian taxpayers made significant sacrifices to help us do that, and I want to thank them for that.

We have a special responsibility, perhaps, to take the lead sometimes in some areas, especially in our region, because Africa expects that of us, so we do that. But NEPAD belongs not to any one country. Actually, it belongs to the African Union, because it's closely linked to the African Union, which is the replacement organization of the Organization of African Unity.

It is not clearly understood outside Africa, but the OAU did a good job of helping us get rid of colonialization, but it's not a structure that can cope with the modern challenges such as globalization that we face. So the new streamlined African Union has been created. South Africa will be the first president, starting in July, which is a kind of special responsibility we have for one year.

The framework for NEPAD is actually the African Union. NEPAD is, if you like to put it crudely, sort of an action plan to kick-start some of the things that are really important and urgent and to start developing a relationship between Africa and the developed world.

What is South Africa doing? First of all, we're hosting the NEPAD secretariat, which supports other more important institutions, such as the Implementation Committee of Heads of State and the steering committee, one step lower down.

We have a responsibility toward our region, so we're taking the lead in southern Africa to coordinate existing structures, to restructure SADC, the South African Development Community, into a more efficient organization. We're working on a whole lot of subjects, like tariff barriers, and trans-frontier parks, in which one of the members of this House has been intensely involved. We are improving transport links and electricity networks to make us stronger as a region. We have that regional responsibility. The whole idea of NEPAD is not to reinvent the wheel but to use existing regional structures to strengthen them, which seems to have been a success in other parts of the world.

The second huge task that South Africa has been asked to tackle by the Implementation Committee is that of good governance in developing a mechanism for peer review. The format is that we would help develop this and then present it to our principals, the heads of state, for approval.

That process started in Abuja, Nigeria, on March 26, where our academic and civil society and other experts had developed a mechanism that we of South Africa thought was far ahead of anything the African continent had seen. Much to our interest and surprise, and perhaps with a little of a bruised ego, we were sent back, being told this had not gone far enough.

What the African leaders at Abuja called for was a mechanism that was first of all owned and managed by Africans, which is fine. It had to be credible, transparent, and all-encompassing. It had to have real teeth, but they had to be African teeth. It had to be separated from the political process, because it would be too easy for the political process, as circumstances changed in one country, to subvert the review mechanism. Importantly, the heads of state said it had to be something with a technical and infrastructural capacity to do the job. They also said they wanted a special commissioner appointed as an official part of the African Union to look at good governance. And all this we had to try to achieve before May 16.

À (1045)

Well, fortunately, because there's this organic link between the African Union and NEPAD, the African Union lays down clear principles of good governance in political, economic, and social spheres. If you look at articles 4 and 30 of the constitutive act of the African Union--and I have a copy here if anyone would like to see it--it lays down conditions for membership. No government that accedes to power through undemocratic means, unconstitutional means, is allowed to be a member. There are other detailed provisions of what good governance constitutes. That's very useful, because all heads of state of all African countries have signed off on that. They have given up their sovereignty to that extent and said we will abide by these rules. So there is a basis in law for this governance and peer review mechanism.

We will see in Maputo on May 16 what that mechanism is, and there might be an announcement at that stage, or perhaps just before Kananaskis. It's clear that it's not going to work. This is a new thing that interested the developed world--that we in Africa are serious. We don't like conditionalities imposed by others. We find it easier to live with conditionalities imposed by ourselves, even if they are tougher than the ones that were before.

The second aspect that we in South Africa are concentrating on, because it's in our self-interest and very much a part of NEPAD, is the aspect of conflict resolution, because you can't have democracy if you have fighting, especially in our region. We live in a tough neighbourhood, and that is why we're heavily involved. We expend huge resources on things like the inter-Congolese dialogue, which is an ongoing process. Our immediate neighbour, Zimbabwe, is in deep trouble, and there's a human tragedy of huge proportions that has developed there and that is still getting worse.

We don't believe in megaphone diplomacy. Some people in the media have turned Zimbabwe into the sort of litmus test of NEPAD is not working, therefore there's no hope. In fact, Zimbabwe is a good example of NEPAD at work, because under no circumstances could you have conceived of two African heads of state voting in favour of suspending a fellow African country from the Commonwealth. So in that respect it is a long-term process, but we believe in the quiet approach that Nigeria and South Africa are following of getting the parties together.

We have people on the ground. In fact, South Africa has sent the secretary general of the ruling party, the ANC, with a structure permanently in Zimbabwe, to try to lessen the suffering of the people who are there at the moment and who are still coming. We are heavily involved also in discussions in Angola, and I think that is bearing good fruit. Of course, one of the latest Canadian citizens, Nelson Mandela, is heavily involved in Burundi. We do that in self-interest and also because we think it can help our region and our continent.

Finally, if you would allow me, Chair, a few words of what we, as South Africa and perhaps the continent, expect of the process. Our main message about the desired outcome of the summit in Kananaskis is that NEPAD, the Genoa action plan, must truly reflect in a concrete manner the nature of the new partnership that we are building.

Just as there is expectation that Africa under NEPAD will make certain detailed commitments in terms of good political and economic governance, peer review, and conflict resolution, so should there be an equally detailed commitment from our G-8 partners. Not Canada, but other countries have made good pronouncements and wonderful words, but often those promises have not been backed up with action. So unlike previous programs, the G-8 action plan must be premised on mutual accountability and a joint monitoring mechanism.

We're always told to be realistic about this, the resources available. We are realistic. But we also say be realistic about what is achievable in a short space of time on good goverance. This is not something we're going to solve in two days; this is a process.

À (1050)

Having said that, we in Africa are proceeding with our side of the deal, regardless of any international assistance, because it is in our own interest to do so.

The action plan must involve concrete, measurable, and predictable programs that will enable Africa to meet the agreed international development goals. Support from the G-8 must be measurable and predictable enough to ensure a logical and strategically planned rollout, and it must be sufficiently material to have an impact in meeting the international development goals. In particular, additional financial support is required in meeting goals for reducing poverty by half, ensuring universal primary education, and addressing health issues. All that we have pledged to do by 2015. It's a big job, but we're working hard to do that.

Apart from assistance in meeting those targets, other elements that should be addressed in the plan of action include tangible commitments to African efforts to eradicate conflict on the continent by ensuring that the international system is more responsive, and timeliness when African crises arise.

It's also important and urgent to ensure equity in the global political, economic, and trade systems by reviewing, for instance, the financial architecture of the Bretton Woods Agreement, and by reforming the UN system and the Security Council so that we can have a voice in those international fora as well.

Market access is key, and that's something that can be done quite easily and quickly.

Addressing the issue of unsustainable levels of debt is important. Canada has been very good about that, but we feel that other G-8 countries could help us significantly more there.

Technology transfers are hugely important to us. What country is better placed than Canada to do that?

We know from experience that Canada is committed to our cause. We appreciate anything you can do to encourage your G-8 partners to do likewise. We look to the G-8 to commit to sustained involvement in a partnership with us to address poverty and marginalization. You can play an invaluable role as agents of progressive change to encourage other nations in the developed world, not only the G-8 but other well-meaning countries, to commit themselves to NEPAD's objectives.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, High Commissioner.

We'll go now to Ethiopia, Mr. Berhanu Dibaba.

His Excellency Berhanu Dibaba (Ambassador of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia in Canada): Thank you very much, Chairperson, for inviting me to represent my country. Thank you also to the members of Parliament who are here.

We appreciate that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and the other members went to Africa. Ethiopia is really grateful, especially our Prime Minister, who has discussed the NEPAD with Jean Chrétien and the group. Our country, like other African countries, has fully accepted the NEPAD initiatives and has begun to implement some of the peace and security aspects.

As you know, we have some conflict with our neighbouring country. That conflict has almost been ended by the members of the commission assigned by the UN. This is one of the things our country has started, as well as other African countries. Peace and security are main issues that must be solved through the NEPAD initiative.

Africa is a multicultural country, and only a few African countries have industries. So Africa needs rural development that leads to industrialization, which will help our country develop. We need free market access, because some products cannot be exported to other countries. For this reason, a very good initiative has started so some African products can be placed in the world markets and we can really benefit from that process.

As you well know, in human resource development we are not really getting enough manpower through immigration. Our intellectuals are mostly outside the country helping other countries. We need these intellectuals to return to their respective African countries now, so they can assist them.

Urban and rural development must coincide. When urban development takes place without rural development, they grow separately. So urban and rural development have to join so they can exchange their products, skills, and educational aspects.

Most African countries are concerned with good governance. In some parts there has been a good start. In the case of my country, there is the start of a democratic system from the federal to the regional and district levels. There is a system that has been implemented. I'm sure this democratic system has also started in some other African countries, so we have to keep up with this democratization process.

In my country a poverty reduction strategy has been discussed. This will also help all people at all levels understand the NEPAD's objectives, especially on poverty reduction. They will be able to really keep developing the NEPAD initiative.

À (1055)

Most African countries have malarial areas, so a rollback malaria program in Africa, in Addis Ababa, was launched on April 25 to control malaria all over Africa. This is a very good initiative.

There is also a very good HIV-AIDS program. Very productive people are dying of AIDS, so we also have to target controlling it, especially in the IAC programs. This has been initiated in most African countries. This is a very good start, and maybe in the G-8 objectives this will be the strongest...as I saw in the document.

We need to focus on education. Most of our African students just complete twelfth grade. In some countries they cannot go to university. There is a need for vocational colleges, so those who are dropouts can go to vocational schools and develop different aspects of their country.

As I already said, free market access is very important for Africa. Our country has accepted being the centre of the OAU, and we will continue the African Union programs and the NEPAD program, as the G-8 proposed.

Thank you very much.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Excellency.

Next is His Excellency Yousef Yousfi, from the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria.

[Translation]

His Excellency Youcef Yousfi (Ambassador of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria to Canada): Madam Chair, distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I would first of all like to extend a warm thank you to the committee and to express my deepest appreciation of the honour that you have bestowed upon me in inviting me here today to take part in this meeting and to discuss our continent and the possibility of creating a partnership between Africa and industrial countries.

With your permission, Madam Chair, I would like to begin by taking stock of some specific facts.

Africa, which is the cradle of humanity and home to some of the most amazing civilizations to have existed in human history, has for several centuries, experienced various forms of exploitation and aggression, including slavery and colonialism.

The often bloody struggles which resulted in independence for African countries have left deep scars and Africa is far from having recovered from these dark periods in its past. Several decades of independence have not been sufficient to enable it to assume its rightful place in the world community. Quite the opposite, in fact; Africa appears to have been increasingly marginalized. The continent is currently facing civil wars, sickness, misery and malnutrition. Unlike other regions of the world, Africa has not yet benefited from scientific and technological progress, and human, social, technological and economic development in Africa remains very slow.

African leaders are aware of the situation, which in many ways is a catastrophe, and also of the immense human and natural resource potential of the continent. Consequently they have committed to a major initiative to revive, rebuild and heal the continent. This initiative, known as NEPAD, was endorsed by all African countries in June 2001.

It is based first and foremost on the resolve and inner strength of the African continent. This is buttressed by initiatives geared to restoring peace and security to the continent. The initiative is designed to enhance political and economic governance by ensuring the participation of all of African society, especially women. This is to be achieved through focus on eradicating poverty and by creating an environment which is conducive to economic growth and sustainable development.

However, we all know that economic and social development is a long, complex and very fragile process. Sustained and ongoing action is required. This undoubtedly requires aggressive action by the international community, and more particularly, by developed countries. This is the fundamental underpinning of the partnership which is to be presented to the G-8.

This initiative is designed to help Africa to progress more quickly. It is not charity, however, as the Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien has rightly pointed out. Rather, it is investment in Africa, by developed countries. The NEPAD partnership will focus on the cornerstones of modernizing Africa: education in its widest sense, health, basic infrastructure, investment—mainly in agriculture— and the development of natural resources. It goes without saying that all this is to be achieved in an environmentally friendly way while also attempting to safeguard market access and the revival of African culture.

Madam Chair, distinguished members of the committee, today, we have a unique opportunity, indeed a historic opportunity to rebuild Africa. This is only possible within the framework of a meaningful partnership with developed countries, in particular Canada. Canada, with its universally recognized human values, is in a position to play a fundamental role in implementing this partnership. As host of the G-8 Summit, Canada is in a good position to aggressively promote Africa. We are convinced that Canada will do everything in its power to create decisive momentum for this partnership, and thus in turn, for the rebirth of Africa.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Excellency.

We'll go to the Nigerian Deputy High Commissioner, Mr. Nuradeen Aliyu. I apologize for not introducing you when I introduced everybody at the beginning.

Mr. Nuradeen Aliyu (Deputy High Commissioner for the Federal Republic of Nigeria): I would like to thank Madam Chair for inviting African ambassadors to give you an overview of NEPAD. I would also like to register our thanks to His Excellency, the Right Honourable Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, for the very successful and fruitful tour to Africa and also for the important pledge of $500 million he made for the implementation of NEPAD.

I would like to say a few words on NEPAD, as an overview. As you are aware, Nigeria is one of the initiating countries of NEPAD and also the chair of the NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee. Nigeria therefore believes NEPAD is a gigantic economic plan aimed at advancing the African economy through massive investments and financial aid from the international community for Africa's development. Nigeria is of the view that in order to achieve those goals, African leaders must demonstrate good governance and improvement of the lives of the people and of the judicial system and human rights records, and also address the armed conflict. Nigeria is therefore in full support of the peer review mechanism.

Nigeria's President, His Excellency Olusegun Obasanjo, said the initiative is the most attractive basis of productive and viable interaction and cooperation between Africa and the international community. Our country committed to the implementation of NEPAD because it offers the continent the best opportunity to move forward with the rest of the world in this century. Nigeria is also of the view that NEPAD will achieve eradication of poverty, underdevelopment, and economic marginalization, and will bolster sustainable growth and development and full participation in the globalization process.

Madam Chair, as you are aware, African countries share the same main problems. What I'm going to mention now is the overall, general problems of Africa's development and also the expectation of what comes out of that in the coming G-8. The whole African continent shares the following problems. Eradication of poverty: African countries need a flow of investment and job creation in order to improve the welfare and well-being of the people. Health care: provision of more clinics and hospitals and also qualified doctors. The same thing goes for agriculture--boost agriculture and food production.

We also expect that the G-8 summit will tackle the question of peace and security. One of my colleagues here mentioned that for any democracy to achieve its purpose, there must be security and peace.

Á (1110)

Also, African countries share the same problem of education. There is a need to improve the quality of education and also to improve the standards of the universities through grants and loans that will improve the standard of education.

Nigeria is also happy that NEPAD enjoys the support of several multilateral bodies, such as the Commonwealth, the European Union, the UN, the G-8, and the Bretton Woods institutions.

On the whole, these are the expectations that we hope will transpire in the coming G-8 meetings.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Deputy High Commissioner.

If you will permit us, we will now go around the table and ask questions in our usual fashion. We start with the official opposition, then go to the Bloc Québécois, then to the Liberals. We go back and forth with questions for the time you have left with us.

We'll start with Mr. Day.

I am sorry. Excuse me. Excellency Diouf of Senegal.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Diouf: Madam Chair, I'm sorry for having interrupted you. I'm not quite sure how things work here.

In my capacity as head of African diplomacy, I would just like to point out that all African leaders agree on the entire range of principles that we've all mentioned here today. Better still, they are currently implementing these principles, be it at a national, subregional, West African, central African, North African or South African level. I think that I have not omitted to mention any of the regions. You have undoubtedly noted that I myself made some general remarks, but I would like to reiterate the fact that the statements made by each of us here today apply, across the board, to all of our countries.

That was just the comment that I wanted to make. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Diouf.

I'm glad you made sure that we are clear, and I think we were clear, that when you speak and you put forward those issues, those are issues that you're all addressing, facing, and are issues around which you are in some way unified.

We'll go to Mr. Day.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to applaud the Prime Minister for his initiative; not only has he realized that African countries have certain needs, but he also recognized something of much greater importance. The Prime Minister has realized the potential of your nations. I think that you have realized this yourselves.

[English]

In saying that the official opposition reflects positively on our prime minister's perspective in the broad way upon what in fact as ambassadors you have identified as the need for the establishment of a peer review to evaluate democratic progress, rule of law, a constitution, openness of markets, the real congratulations of course go to each of your nations. This is where it has come from. So I first say, in a broad way, that we applaud our prime minister for recognizing that and raising the profile of that. I think it's very important that he's done that.

I do want to say that over time you will not always hear the opposition congratulate some of the specific initiatives that he might be suggesting that Canadian taxpayers involve themselves in, in your efforts. So I need to be very clear about that. But broadly, he is clearly on the right track there.

Having said that, investment, which you so desperately need.... I don't have to tell you these things. You've already identified the need for investment. And more than governments investing, people invest, and groups of people invest. And groups of people will continue to invest their capital in any country where there is the potential for some return, obviously--and a return for both sides. So I do think there's great potential there.

Investment capital looks for stability; it looks for comfort long-term stability. I think what we're hearing from you is those are positive things that will begin to attract the type of investment you so desperately need. I think there's an appropriate role for governments and even for taxpayers, if we explain it to our taxpayers. And as an opposition member I can say that we don't explain it clearly enough to our taxpayers. But there are benefits to Canadians to see prosperity in your own country, and peace and stability. There are mutual benefits.

Having said that, I would caution against--and I'm just sharing from our experience in Canada--the tendency for governments to pick and choose industrially which businesses they think will prosper, and therefore investing amounts of taxpayer money in certain businesses. We take a very strong position, from the Canadian experience, that this is not a good practice. You'll make your own decisions, but I throw that out as a cautionary flag, having spent just a little time in South Africa. I cannot be an expert, but working with a province there on the investment side, I can say that opportunity is ripe, and we will do everything we can to get your message out on the things you are pursuing.

Something that's come up a couple of times, if I can ask a question, is the issue of crime. Crime, of course, in any jurisdiction causes instability and therefore is a negative toward investment. I was just in a region in the United States where they had a past history of criminal activity that was known everywhere, and over the last ten years they have subdued that. They have dealt with that, and investment is returning to that particular region. I won't mention which region it is, as I don't want my U.S. friends to be picking on me, but in fact we see that.

With that in mind, I appreciate hearing what you said. Some of you have said it related to Zimbabwe and the situation with private landowners there. Of course when investors worldwide hear that, it makes them nervous. When individual investors or people who might want to look at moving hear that, it makes them nervous. How do you see that having repercussions, for instance, in South Africa and the neighbouring countries to Zimbabwe? Do you think the message is getting out that you don't like what you see happening in terms of the elections, which is a reflection on democracy, which is a reflection on instability? How do you see that affecting you negatively, and is there anything we can do to get a message out that would help in that area?

I put that to all the ambassadors.

Á (1120)

The Chair: I also know that as ambassadors and as diplomats, they cannot make political pronouncements. They will have to very carefully steer around the question if it has political implications. So I will leave it to the ambassadors to conduct themselves in a manner to which they are accustomed.

They have about a minute and a half for the answer.

Excellency Diouf.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Diouf: Thank you, Madam Chair. No matter how guarded we are, I believe that you will understand us, even if we don't spell things out explicitly.

In terms of the Zimbabwe issue—I myself am a native of West Africa and Zimbabwe is indeed an African nation— I think that we have to put this situation in context. Zimbabwe has been demonized. There have been things which have transpired in Zimbabwe that Africans do not approve of. However, if you look at the roots of the land issue in Zimbabwe, you can see that it all stems from the country's colonial past. It was British settlers who dispossessed the Africans of their land. Imagine a situation where 4% of the population owned 80% of the arable land. Imagine landowners in Zimbabwe who don't even live in the country but in Canada or in the United Kingdom and who make the Africans work for them.

Worse still, there was the Ian Smith-led uprising which was settled by the Landcaster House agreement. In this agreement, the British government committed to compensate white farmers, to encourage them to return the land to Zimbabwe natives. One thing that is not known is that this commitment was never implemented. This is what led to the rise of Mr. Mugabe, because African farmers were dissatisfied. However, that never comes through in the media.

I just wanted to remind you of the facts before we talk about the potential impact on South Africa. I would now like to give the floor to my South African colleague.

Mr. André Jaquet: Thank you, Your Excellency.

[English]

As far as the effect on South Africa is concerned, if we abandon democracy, of course we will have problems. We won't have problems from farmers, because our revolution wasn't a land-based farmer revolution, but if we don't deliver to the people as a government, if we don't deliver to the people in the urban areas housing, electricity, and education, then the people will have a right to be angry and to act in consequence.

So the effect on South Africa in a philosophical sense is that we don't want to have the kinds of problems that other countries have in our region, so we have to stick firmly to democracy, and that kind of spurs and concentrates and focuses our minds on the importance of democratic government.

As to the physical effect, if there's even a greater tragedy, yes, we can expect refugees coming from Zimbabwe, but we've prepared for that and we'll welcome them, because they made sacrifices when we had a lot of problems. But our main thrust of trying to help is inside the country, to reconcile Zimbabweans among themselves, and we're doing that within the Commonwealth context and with the help of Nigeria and Australia.

Yes, good governance is important, and that is why NEPAD will be useful to us. It will get more countries around the table, making sure that other countries understand the effects of indifferent governance.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Rocheleau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My multipart question is for His Excellency, the Ambassador of Senegal, in particular. However, if any of the other witnesses would like to comment, please feel free to do so.

One of our current stand-up comics in Quebec, Mr. Mpambara, is an African. I believe he is from Rwanda or the Congo and he has a very particular sense of humour. In a skit on the past economic development of Africa, he describes the exploitation of Africa by colonial powers. In the punch line, he quite rightly and cynically states that Africa was not only exploited in the past, but as if by magic, or through the workings of the Holy Spirit, it is now indebted to those western countries that exploited it. Could you perhaps comment on the western-style logic behind this type of statement?

Secondly, in your presentation, you held that there is currently very little trade between African nations. I have never heard the situation put in such a way. Could you perhaps elaborate on the reasons why this is so, if it is indeed the case.

You also said that if developed countries imported African products, Africa would no longer need western aid. I would like you to elaborate a bit on that and to comment on the fact that 75% of Canadian aid, mainly through CIDA, is provided in services and not in hard cash. Indeed, 75% of this aid comes back to the Canadian economy. Perhaps there are adjustments to be made there.

On the issue of the Kananaskis Summit, I think that realisticly, I see two areas of danger here stemming from the fact that several topics will be discussed, including African development. In light of the obsession with the war on terrorism and with security that currently reigns in western countries, especially in the United States, I'm afraid that the debate of the Kananaskis Summit may take on an overly security-oriented skew and may simply brush over the catastrophic situation in Africa. I believe that this is something that may hamper genuine debate.

Secondly, what real power do the G-8 countries have in terms of the ubiquity and enormous power of the multinationals, which control a major part of Africa? What clout, in real terms, do governments have with regard to the multinationals? Especially, when you realize, for example, that since 1985, the price of African raw materials has dropped by 65%?

I suppose that we can see that multinationals do play a role in African development. I am perhaps more aware of what is happening on the Ivory Coast, which has experienced a drop in cocoa production. The price of this commodity has nosedived and this has meant that production costs now outstrip the market price of this product.

I would like to hear what you have to say on these broad issues.

Á (1125)

Mr. Pierre Diouf: That is quite a broad question. People say that the Holy Spirit makes his presence felt where and how he chooses to, but we don't see him very often in Africa. At any rate, we do not know where the Holy Spirit was when Africa was being exploited. It is time he came back to Africa.

If people are pleased about Africa's debt to the developed countries, it is primarily because Africans cannot reimburse this debt. You have to examine the structure of the debt and how African countries have become indebted. They were more or less forced to take on debt. The western countries and international institutions were prepared to finance just about any kind of project and, as a result, this debt served virtually no purpose whatsoever, except for the fact that it lined the pockets of the institutions and the countries that loaned money to Africa. Since African countries are paying back this debt, currently there is a greater flow of money from Africa to the developed countries. You can see the extent to which this debt and this flow of capital that goes from the south to the north constitutes a barrier to the development of Africa. So it is time for the Holy Spirit to return.

I also said that if African products had easier access to the markets of developed countries, we would no longer need aid. We have done the math. All of the international institutions have done the math. Again, we would like to see Africa's debt replaced by trade, a partnership, commerce between African countries and developed countries. Most of the products that Africa imports from developed countries are subsidized, particularly agricultural products. Regardless of whether these products come from a common market, the United States or Canada—nobody heard me—they are subsidized, and we cannot compete with such products.

Then there are the barriers which we refer to as non-tariff barriers. If you want to import peanuts from Senegal here in Canada, you will be told that these peanuts do not comply with the standards defined by Agriculture Canada, Health Canada, Customs Canada, Canada this and Canada that to the point where all of the barriers will prevent us from being able to trade with you when in fact we do have things for sale. So that is the story about the customs barriers. It appears that the Prime Minister has ordered a phase-out of such barriers here in Canada. This was also done in the United States through AGOA, an act which was adopted by President Clinton shortly before he left office and which gave African products easier access to the American market. Generally speaking, this works quite well.

I think that it would be quite dangerous for the Kananaskis Summit to forget about Africa's problems and focus on security issues. The Prime Minister and his government assured us that every step would be taken to ensure that NEPAD is on the agenda, because this is not the first time that a link has been made between poverty and security. Often poverty is the breeding ground for terrorism because when people have their back against the wall, they can go no further: the attack was a means at their disposal, particularly when they feel that they are dealing with a problem of international justice. So we have been reassured that the security issues will not take precedence over NEPAD.

What power do governments have in dealing with multinationals? Most multinationals do have at least one headquarters somewhere. We have seen what happens in countries when there are G-8 or G-20 meetings. Civilians and taxpayers are against certain types of globalization. So we are counting not only on the governments but also on the taxpayers, on civil society, because if things continue as they are, not only will the Africans continue to suffer, but some of your citizens will pay the cost as well. Some of your constituents will pay the cost. If this happens, this will have an impact on you. In a nutshell, this is the power that governments will have in dealing with multinationals.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. We'll come back to you, Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming you to this committee. I think we have a very impressive array of African diplomats making their point very clearly.

I'd also like to welcome young people, Madam Chair, who came into this House. My colleague from la belle province brought some young energetic people to follow our proceedings. We welcome them to our nation's capital.

Á (1135)

The Chair: I think the group is from Richelieu.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I just wish to praise the students you brought in and acknowledge that they are from la belle province and to welcome them to the nation's capital.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have three questions, Madam Chair. The first is to His Excellency, the Ambassador from Cameroon, then a second question to the panel, or anybody who will pick it up. My third question is to the Ambassador for Egypt, Mr. Shaker, about free trade.

Mr. Ambassador for Cameroon, you mentioned about the brain drain through emigration. That issue is very complicated. We like to bring in people from all over the world who we think will contribute to our economy with their education, degrees, knowledge, what have you. At the same time, knowingly or unknowingly, we are taking resources from your country, bringing them here because these individuals say they have no jobs over there, so come to Canada to put their skills to work in Canada. At the same time, you've spent money to educate these people and there goes your education, there goes your investment in their future. I want you to tell us, how can we balance this approach?

My second question was referred to earlier, the role of multinationals and the G-8 in developing the African economy. Perhaps someone will comment in general on that, not in any particular field but in general, on the role of multinational corporations. Some of them are much bigger than many countries in the world. They could do more good than some countries we know of.

My third question is to the Ambassador for Egypt. Two weeks ago, Madam Chair, you will recall the Minister for International Trade was here, Mr. Pierre Pettigrew. I asked him a question about free trade between Egypt and Canada and he was quite positive. I wonder if the ambassador will elaborate on this point to see how far we go, what the situation is.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Assadourian. The first question was to the High Commissioner from Cameroon.

Mr. Philémon Yunji Yang: Thank you very much for the question on the brain drain.

I think even if the world were a perfect place, there would always be a brain drain. And even if Africa were paradise, people would want to go elsewhere. With globalization, people have the freedom to go around the world. In fact, globalization is a wonderful thing, immigration is a wonderful thing, but our experience has been that a lot of people who go abroad to the developed countries take courses, study in universities, perform very well, but very often the salaries offered to them here or in the U.S. or in Europe are so high that they prefer to stay here. It is a wonderful thing, because they make a contribution, but they would probably make a better contribution to the development of Africa if they were back in Africa.

I can think of one way out. If NEPAD did work very well, probably we should be educating our students more in Africa on the spot, rather than outside Africa. I am almost tempted to believe that if most of the young people were educated in Africa, they wouldn't find themselves in Silicon Valley in the U.S., or elsewhere. I think this is important for a young country like mine, because if you send out fifty students--once we had about fifty of them here for computer science, engineering and the like--you don't see many of them coming back home. This is definitely a loss for us.

So one of the inferences of globalization now is that we are losing a lot of good people who ought to be selling Africa. I don't think there is a panacea, a solution that would resolve the whole problem, but if they were educated in Africa they would be more tempted to stay there.

Thank you, sir.

The Chair: The second question goes to Ambassador Yousfi from Algeria.

[Translation]

Mr. Youcef Yousfi: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to make a few comments about the multinationals. African countries, of course, need all the investment they can get, including from multinationals, which have the human, technical and financial resources to work in unstable environments. There is no doubt that these multinationals are geared to maximizing their income and earnings. There is certainly an impact on the economy, but we find that there is often a real impact on employment, training or infrastructure in the country concerned.

I can give you a little example to show that African countries often lack the necessary tools to deal with these multinationals. In my country, we had the experience of a multinational that built a fertilizer plant for agricultural production. It did not work. The plant actually exploded. When we went to the international courts, the company won on technical grounds, and Algeria paid $150 million to the multinational.

That is why, I believe, African countries have to make a distinction between aid and partnerships between developed countries and African countries regarding how things are done, education and tools for development. We also, of course, want to create an investment-friendly environment, but one that allows at least a minimum amount of control. In our countries, that minimum control often does not exist.

Thank you.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: Excellency Shaker.

Ms. Sallama Mahmoud Shaker: Thank you very much for giving me this chance to speak.

I don't think any of us meant to be bilateral, but since we have brought up the subject, the trade between Egypt and Canada, for the past five years, I would say, has been always in favour of Canada, naturally, as I see it. Our official trade figures are approximately $200 million. Actually, the year 2001-02 has witnessed a 20% augmentation in Egyptian exports to Canada.

Having said that, I do believe that our investment figures sound very promising, because in the past two years it's been $3 billion from Canadian investment companies, which tells us that definitely there is an amicable environment for attracting trade particularly.

I have to state that in technology and IT and e-commerce we seem to be really in very good shape. However, neither the embassy here nor the Canadian embassy in Cairo can really tell the figures of the private trade. We do not have what you would call any census with regard to how much private trade there is, because it's very difficult to keep track of the private trade that is going on between both countries. So if we really could calculate it, there is a figure that indicates this could be up to $300 million.

Putting things in perspective, I must say that considering that Egypt has a population of 66 million, we do have a high purchasing power, and I am sure there is a lot of room for more investment and more trade between Canada and Egypt.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

Mr. Day.

[Translation]

Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Diouf for his comments about free trade. It is easy for us here in Canada to say that free trade is absolutely necessary, but we have heard today that Canada occasionally establishes rules and restrictions that prevent trade. We are capable of preventing trade. It is important that we Canadians be aware that a government can prevent investment and prosperity for its own citizens and for the citizens of your countries by taxing too heavily and putting in place rules that are too numerous and too complicated.

I do not have any questions, Madam Chair, but I would like to thank the Ambassador for giving us this lesson in economics today. It is very important.

Á (1145)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Your excellencies, thank you for your presentations, which I felt were excellent. I have two short comments.

First, I really appreciated your presentation, Mr. Yousfi. You gave us the historical background which largely explains the current situation in Africa today. You can tell just by looking at me that I am a product of a colonialist practice that existed in the past, that is, slavery.

I also enjoyed the presentations by Mr. Jacquet and the other witnesses, which dealt with Canadian policies and Canada's leadership on NEPAD. You also said that Africa should be the continent of the third millennium.

You are all familiar with CIDA. I have the honour of being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation. I know that CIDA has a long history in Africa, on a number of levels, and I would like to ask you whether you feel that CIDA should play a particular role in development or NEPAD. It is true that African countries will be in the driver's seat for this project, this new policy, this action plan, and it is true that Canada, through our Prime Minister, has taken the leadership at the G-8, but it is also true that we are already playing a role in Africa through international cooperation.

I would ask each of you to tell me briefly how you see CIDA's role. Should CIDA's expertise in development programs be brought into play in implementing NEPAD, or should CIDA merely play a funding role? That is a fairly broad question, but I am sure that you will give us some good ideas.

[English]

The Chair: Excellency from South Africa, Mr. Jaquet.

[Translation]

Mr. André Jaquet: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to start by talking about South Africa. I would very much like to see CIDA do for Africa what it is already doing for South Africa. You have helped us tremendously to build our capacity to govern. Given our history, we now have leaders who did not have an opportunity to learn how to govern a country.

Each South African department has an agreement to develop governance with its counterpart in Canada, and that has been a tremendous help. There is also a lot of goodwill that has been expressed by our leaders with respect to NEPAD, but we sometimes lack the ability to do things well. Some people think that there is a lack of enthusiasm or perhaps corruption. It is due to the lack of ability to govern well.

So do not stop doing what you are doing for us in South Africa, and extend the approach throughout Africa.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We'll go to Excellency Yousfi, of Algeria.

[Translation]

Mr. Youcef Yousfi: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want to thank Ms. Marlene Jennings for her remarks. I will make some comments about my country, but I am convinced that certain countries have more or less the same concerns.

I think there are areas where Canada excels. There are areas where Canada's performance is among the best in the world. We, for example, need to focus on state and administrative reform.

Earlier on I spoke about capacity building, as did Ambassador Jaquet, especially as regards our state and administration, so that we have a state worthy of this millennium. Canada, I believe, is extremely proficient.

I also want to talk about professional training. Providing a young person with professional training is helping him find a job and develop. There are more and more young people coming out of school systems without knowing how to work and who will have no future without professional training. I feel that Canada also excels in this area and our country can benefit from that. In northern Africa, we are facing a very serious problem with respect to water. If any country knows about water, it is Canada. We must find out where the water is, transport it to our people, distribute it and treat it: this is a crucial and fundamental issue.

Of course, the fourth problem—and I will not go through them all—is the environment, an area where Canada has extraordinary experience and know-how. The matter revolves around protecting the environment through waste and residue management.

I think we can benefit immensely from Canada's support in these areas. Thank you.

Á (1150)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

A final word to Excellency Yang, of Cameroon.

Mr. Philémon Yunji Yang: Thank you very much for the question.

I think CIDA has the type of institutional memory that you wouldn't want to lose. NEPAD is going to do a lot of things, but I think they will be at a higher level, perhaps a more continental level. But the very specific projects in which CIDA has been involved--water, wells in villages, and that type of thing--should continue, because once you can bring water to a village in a place where there is a lot of drought, you are changing everything for those villagers.

NEPAD can never do that type of thing, and should never be expected to. So I think CIDA will continue to be important and will continue to do things that cannot be done by somebody else.

Thank you.

The Chair: My colleague is asking to make a very short comment.

Monsieur Rocheleau. I'll cut you off if you go too long.

[Translation]

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

On the Kananaskis Summit, according to the information we have and based on my perception of the situation, there is a danger given the American's obsession with security. To show the world that Africa exists and that there is solidarity among us, shouldn't the African countries unanimously write to the chairman, Mr. Chrétien, to remind him that they want the debate to be an authentic one that is not left to the last minute, and only takes place if time permits, because security requirements must take precedence? We know how much influence the Americans and the British have, among others. Given the catastrophic situation in Africa, to use the same word as your colleague from Nigeria, would it not be a good idea to take prompt action?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Rocheleau. Thank you for the comment. I'm not going to ask for a response to that. We'll just take it as a point well made.

Excellencies, we thank you for your kindness in coming before us today for our study of the G-8 summit.

As chair, I would like to ask two things. Would it be possible for the High Commissioner for South Africa to table with the committee the constitutional principles of the African Union that you cited at the beginning? That would help us in terms of our recommendation.

Also, someone mentioned a meeting on May 16. If it's possible for us to have some of the central elements coming out of that meeting sent to the committee, we would appreciate hearing that. I'm sure we'll be hearing some more about this meeting.

As I thank you, I also want to say quite clearly that I did not acknowledge all the protocols--that is, ask you to speak in the right order or address you by all the appropriate nomenclatures, etc. I hope you have come before us in a friendly fashion to exchange and to speak to the committee members, and that we can carry the dialogue forward. No slight was intended to anyone by asking someone to speak before the other. As the chair, I just want to make sure we do this in a friendly fashion here.

We've learned a good deal from you, from your interaction with us. We thank you and we thank your countries for the participation. I will not mention names, but there are some of you in front of the table who were very hospitable on our last visit to Africa. I also want to publicly thank you for this.

The work your countries have undertaken and the participation of all individuals in your population must be commended as we begin to work forward. We are taking into account what we've learned from you, what we've heard, and we hope to see this tabled in our report, which is going to be at the end of May.

Finally, again, I appreciate your understanding in permitting us to do a bit of business, having committee reports tabled while you wait. I know the protocol would not permit this. Again, this committee has individuals running from one item to the next, and we want to catch people at the time when it's possible. We apologize for having called on you, our distinguished guests, and at the same time, not observing and recognizing the correct protocol.

I want to thank you and I want to do the protocol now: Ambassador Diouf from Senegal, His Excellency High Commissioner Yang from Cameroon, His Excellency High Commissioner Jacquet from South Africa, Her Excellency Ambassador Shaker from Egypt, Excellency Ambassador Yousfi from Algeria, Excellency Ambassador Dibaba from Ethiopia, Deputy High Commissioner Aliyu from Nigeria. I hope I did it right.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mission accomplished. Thank you so much for coming.

I think, Ambassador Diouf, you want the last word.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Diouf: I don't dare conclude the committee meeting, as that is not within my power. We would simply like to invite all of you to an African evening we are organizing on May 22nd. Each year, as the chair knows, we celebrate Africa Day. This year, it will be on May 22, at the Château Cartier, and you are all welcome. It will show you another side, another face of Africa. As you know, Africa is not only afflicted with AIDS, war and famine. We also know how to live.

We want you to come and experience this African evening with us. I would ask the committee chair to send us the list of committee members. It will be a pleasure and a privilege to invite them to this event.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm sure we all will make whatever efforts we can to be there and to be celebrating. We celebrated South African Freedom Day with South Africa last night, and that was delightful. So thank you so much for the invitation. We look forward to it. Thank you for coming out and being with us.

The meeting is adjourned.