FAIT Committee Report

CHAPTER II: ACTION TOWARDS A MORE EQUITABLE
AND SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ECONOMY

There are still risks to the global outlook, and too many people are trapped in a cycle of poverty and despair. Our task is to work together to identify measures that will further reduce uncertainty and promote sustainable and equitable global economic growth.

         Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of Finance¹²

        Compared to several months ago, prospects are considerably more buoyant for growth in the G8 economies and in the world economy as a whole. Recent outlooks show stronger signs of a recovery in North America following the post-September 11 downturn, with Canada leading the way in projected growth rates within both the G8 and the OECD.¹³ Despite such positive scenarios, there are a number of risk factors even within the economically privileged G8 area — inter alia, Japan’s continuing recession; extremely high levels of consumer and corporate debt; an overvalued U.S. dollar and that country’s need to finance its huge current account deficit;¹⁴ rising trade protectionism in the United States; volatile oil prices and the effects of the Middle East crisis. Kananaskis is an important opportunity to address at the highest level those factors which could undermine a sustained and broadly based recovery within and beyond the G8.

        In addition, as Minister Martin’s statement cited above underlines, the present global economy remains very far from performing well, much less equally well, for all. Unacceptable levels of poverty persist even in some of the richest countries. As for the developing world, Roy Culpeper of the North-South Institute argued in his testimony of January 31 that the global economic growth which was encouraged during the previous decade, and which created both winners and losers, went hand in hand with an increase in human insecurity for many people, particularly in Africa. In short, more of the same, with perhaps minor adjustments, is a suspect solution offering little comfort to those who have yet to enjoy much of the benefits from past growth.

        A number of witnesses went further to challenge the premises of conventional growth and export-oriented economic policies, contending that other public values — notably relating to social justice, health and education, environmental stewardship, human rights, democracy — should be taken into account in economic policy formulation from the local to the global level. They appealed to G8 leaders to expand their horizon of vision in order to consider alternative approaches to economic progress that would put the long-term well-being of humanity and the planet as a whole at the centre of policy considerations.

WHAT CANADIANS TOLD US¹⁵

Fostering Conditions for Shared Global Recovery and Advancement

        Notwithstanding some signs of an economic rebound in G7 economies, which account for nearly half of global output, witnesses expressed a great deal of scepticism about the present direction of economic growth policies and of economic globalization in general. Many called for alternative approaches to the dominant paradigm of market-driven liberalization and for major reforms to the structures of the international economic system — for what Blair Doucet of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour referred to as a "pro-globalization of social and economic justice." While institutions like the World Bank appear to have become more sensitive to poverty and sustainable human development impacts,¹⁶ there is concern that some policies favoured by the G7 remain fundamentally flawed and that strong remedial measures are required in order to move towards a global economy that meets human needs and respects human rights.

        The Committee cannot address all of the reform prescriptions offered by witnesses but we will comment briefly in subsequent sections on issues related to development co-operation goals, international financial reforms, ethical standards of conduct and environmental sustainability.

        Before moving to those, one area that deserves attention in Kananaskis is ensuring that the multilateral trade regime is not put at risk by an escalation of protectionist disputes between the major G7 economies (U.S. steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies,¹⁷ to name only two recent irritants), but instead evolves in a direction that provides benefits to poorer regions, and especially to the least developed countries, the majority of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Theodore Cohn of Simon Fraser University observed in his presentation in Vancouver on May 6, that the G7/G8 process has been weak and unsatisfactory in providing leadership on multilateral trade issues in recent years; indeed calling its record "atrocious" on reducing protectionism affecting developing countries.¹⁸ At the same time, other submissions we received expressed strong concerns that Canada not support new trade and market access initiatives unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they are of benefit to ordinary citizens in both developed and developing countries, and that they will not jeopardize governments’ ability to provide public services and to regulate in the public interest.

        In previous cross-Canada hearings three years ago the Committee was made fully aware of the depth of Canadians’ concerns about the deficiencies in the present international trading system. The result was a major report which made many recommendations for far-reaching reforms.¹⁹ Based on recent hearings by our Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment, the Committee has just tabled a further report on the current WTO negotiating agenda which makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving prospects for developing countries.²⁰ We urge the government to take these into consideration when formulating its positions for the G8 Summit.

        There is no question that trade, under the right circumstances, can be a positive force for development and poverty reduction. A recent report by Oxfam observes that if developing countries increased their share of world exports by just 5%, this would generate US$350 billion in revenues, seven times what they now receive in aid; in the case of Africa, a 1% increase in its share of world exports would provide five times what it receives in aid and debt relief. However, the same report underlines that trade liberalization can hurt the poor under a system of biased rules which increases rather than decreases global inequities.²¹ So how those rules get made matters a great deal. In the words of another recent report prepared for the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, whose president Gerry Barr appeared before the Committee in Toronto: "The rules, institutions, and policies that regulate international trade, and their interface with local economic and social realities, make all the difference."²²

        Stuart Clark of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank provided a good concrete example to the Committee in Winnipeg of how international trade can be either a progressive or a destructive force, depending on the rules over which G7 governments carry a lot of clout and therefore bear the largest responsibility.

Much has been made of the relative significance of trade and foreign aid in the GDP of developing countries, including those in Africa. As an engine of growth and potentially, poverty and hunger reduction, trade is the V8, foreign aid is the starter motor. And to carry the automotive analogy a bit further, this V8 engine can take the car forward … or backwards. We support a rules-based trading system that moves hunger and poverty reduction forward. … But we must also urge Canada to look at those situations where the engine of trade can perversely drive poverty and hunger reduction backwards. …The Foodgrains Bank has been active in supporting the clarification and promotion of the Development Box, a new set of agricultural trade rules for the developing country members in the WTO. The intent of these rules is to curb the strongly negative effects of the forced opening of staple food markets in Africa. We urge Canada to support WTO agricultural trade rules to prevent the undermining of African small farmers’ livelihoods.²³

Recommendation 2

• Canada should use the G8 Summit to urge its partners to refrain from actions, such as damaging trade protectionism or deflationary monetary/fiscal measures, which could jeopardize prospects for world economic recovery.

• More generally, and leading by example, Canada should press the G8 to critically review their economic policies from the standpoint of whether they contribute to growth on terms that improve conditions of life for the majority of citizens, while helping to reduce gross inequities within and between the developed and developing world. In regard to the engine of global trade, Canada should encourage the negotiation of reformed international trade rules and practices that are explicitly designed to benefit the poorest people and regions, with particular attention to the needs of Africa.

        Making Assistance Effective in Realizing International Development Goals

        Leaders of G8 countries are among those who have committed themselves to a series of international development targets agreed to at major global gatherings from the 1995 World Summit for Social Development to the 2000 UN Millennium Summit. Under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), donor governments endorsed these in 1996 in the form of seven key international development targets. As these benchmarks were repeatedly cited by witnesses, it may be useful to be reminded of them.²⁴

• Reduce the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by half by 2015;

• Enroll all children in primary school by 2015;

• Eliminate gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005;

• Reduce infant mortality rates by two-thirds by 2015;

• Provide access for all who need reproductive health services by 2015;

• Reduce maternal mortality ratios by three-quarters by 2015;

• Implement national strategies for sustainable development by 2005 so as to reverse the loss of environmental resources by 2015.

        Notwithstanding the desirability of boosting trade and private investment flows as a means of financing developing countries’ capacities to work towards these goals, it is clear that substantial increases in international assistance will be needed in order to meet these targets. This is especially true for the poorest countries in Africa. The UN Summit on Financing for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico in March 2002, attended by G8 leaders, acknowledged as much and did reaffirm the targets of 0.7% of GNP for annual contributions of official development assistance (ODA) from donor nations, with 0.15-0.2% of GNP for the least developed countries. The Monterrey Declaration also called on donors, recipients and international institutions to "strive to make ODA more effective."²⁵ European countries and the U.S. announced that they would significantly increase their aid. Canada pledged annual aid increases of 8%.

        Witnesses, however, expressed a number of concerns about aid volumes, aid quality, distribution, and the conditions attached to "effectiveness." While overall aid amounts may now be trending upwards again, this comes after a decade of sharp declines and still leaves a large shortfall in UN estimates of what is needed to meet the agreed development goals. The average ODA/GNP ratio for the G7 is now only 0.18%, compared to an average of 0.46% for the non-G7 OECD donor countries,²⁶ and there is no specific time table for actually coming close to reaching the 0.7% target. (Canada does better at around 0.3% of GNP for ODA in the 2001-2002 fiscal year according to post-Budget estimates by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation,²⁷ but this is still below the OECD average, and Canada has fallen to 17th place among OECD donor countries.) Moreover, the least developed countries, the majority of which are in Africa, receive considerably less than one-third of global aid flows.

        Witnesses pointed to other factors reducing the effectiveness of aid for poverty reduction, such as continued reliance on "tying" to purchases in the donor country, and continued adherence to orthodox "structural adjustment" prescriptions devised by the IFIs with very little real input from poor countries themselves, much less from those most affected by the impact of such conditions. For some, the "Monterrey Consensus" is too much in the mould of the heavily criticized Washington consensus, and the poverty reduction strategies currently proposed by the IFIs remain too ideological, top-down and unresponsive to civil society concerns. Some witnesses called for a new development compact that would make local ownership of development programs reality not just rhetoric. There are also questions about how "aid effectiveness" may be applied as, in effect, a precondition or eligibility criterion for receiving assistance. As Robert Letendre of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace pointed out in his submission in Montreal on February 28, it is hardly surprising that countries which are better governed, which are tackling crime and corruption problems, will be better candidates for effective utilization of aid. This may be a case of reinforcing capacities or "rewarding success," but what happens then to the rest? Some witnesses were concerned about a "triage" mentality developing in which some of the poorest countries and neediest people might be abandoned to a miserable fate.

        These are all complicated issues without simple solutions. But perhaps above all, one of the messages from witnesses was that G8 should only make promises in respect of aid outcomes and reforms which they are themselves prepared to keep. As Blaise Salmon, president of Results Canada put it: "Without national accountability for outcomes, and regular monitoring and reporting, the Millennium [international development] goals will likely end up as only another expression of good intentions, with limited results." (Submission, April 11, 2002) The Committee agrees that the G8 needs to demonstrate more effective leadership in regard to meeting the international development goals to which it has affirmed.

Recommendation 3

• Canada should propose that the G8 establish a working group on aid effectiveness and reform which would include participation by non-governmental and developing-country experts.

• Canada should also propose a realistic timetable for achieving the UN’s target for official development assistance (ODA) of 0.7% of GNP, and should lobby its G8 partners to increase substantially their level of ODA for Africa, with the objective of rapidly raising the overall level of assistance from the G8 members to that of the average of the non-G8 donor countries, currently 0.46% of GNP.

• In addition to reviewing the effectiveness of existing policies, the proposed G8 working group should be charged with responsibility for making an annual public report to summit leaders on both G8 progress in meeting the UN’s GNP targets for ODA and on G8 contributions to realizing the international development goals reaffirmed by recent UN summits.

        There are several development goals in particular on which witnesses urged more and better coordinated G8 action — namely, public health and basic education.

        The United Nations Global Health Fund which focuses on combating the scourges of tuberculosis (TB), malaria and HIV/AIDS (GFATM) was launched earlier this year. However, witnesses pointed out that funding commitments to the GFATM of some $2 billion to date fall far short of the $7-10 billion required. As noted earlier, Catherine Little pointed out in her Calgary submission that the G8 countries have not lived up to
the health-related promises they made at the 2000 Okinawa Summit. She called for a "full progress report" and a new action plan, bolstering her case by presenting the Committee with the findings from the report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, chaired by the noted Harvard University economist Jeffrey Sachs.²⁸ This was reinforced by compelling testimony in Edmonton the next day from Drs. Anne Fanning, Stan Houston and Walter Kipp on behalf of Stop TB Canada. They made the case that although Canada has pledged $100 million to the GFATM, the G8 as a whole could do much more to invest in urgently needed health infrastructures, especially in rural Africa.

        While applauding Canada’s role in and contributions to the "Education for All" initiative and through the G8 Taskforce on Basic Education — described to the Committee by CIDA President Len Good in his testimony accompanying Ambassador Fowler’s second appearance on April 25 — a number of witnesses argued that much remains to be done. In Calgary, Randy Rudolph, a co-chair of the education session for the June 21-25 G6B conference in that city, observed that Africa will need a seven-fold increase in funding if it is to meet the international development targets on basic education. (Submission, May 8, 2002) In addition to annual results-based implementation targets for donors, he called for an elimination of user fees and safeguards against any increase in private delivery of education introducing additional costs for poor families. Another submission that day in Toronto by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation emphasized keeping the provision of education public.

        In the vein of what might be called "knowledge connections for all," the Committee also heard from Deputy Minister Peter Harder and other public and private-sector participants on the Canadian Advisory Committee to the G8 Digital Opportunities Task Force (DOT Force), another initiative that emerged out of the 2000 Okinawa Summit. The Committee agrees that overcoming the "digital divide" is a worthy objective and that information and communications technologies can be harnessed to key development goals. However, as the DOT Force documents and action plans themselves acknowledge, there is still an urgent need to design specific initiatives which will genuinely improve the livelihoods of the poorest people, those with the least access to even old technologies like telephones. Richard Fuchs of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) observed that much of the digital revolution in Africa, as in the case of the Internet, has been confined to principally expatriate institutions and "very thin slices of elite export-oriented use."²⁹ But the potential for broadening the impact is great. He noted that some of the newest technologies are also the most affordable and most accessible, so rapid strides forward are possible under the right conditions.

Recommendation 4

• Canada should urge the G8 to work with others towards fully funding and expanding the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria, with a focus on health infrastructures in the poorest areas, and to establish annual implementation targets for results.

• Similarly, Canada should push for increased G8 support for basic public education in the poorest countries, annual reporting targets on outcomes, the elimination of user fees and vigilance against other impediments to universal access.

• In regard to information and communications technology initiatives to bridge the "digital divide," such as the DOT Force, Canada should work with others to ensure that benefits can ultimately reach down to the level of the poorest people who have had the least access to such technologies.

        Working Towards International Financial Reforms, Debt Relief, and Stability

        The most comprehensive proposals for reforming international financial arrangements and the IFIs themselves were presented to the Committee in Montreal by the Quebec Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC-Quebec).³⁰ However, many other witnesses also argued that reforms are imperative, particularly in regard to removing the burden of unsustainable debts for the poorest countries, and preventing or at least better managing the recurrent financial crises in the developing world. To put the problem in perspective, the World Bank has estimated that losses of some $1 trillion due to such crises in the last 20 years are equivalent to the total amount of ODA since 1950. Most witnesses also supported the idea of putting a small tax on speculative financial transactions — the so-called "Tobin tax," named after its originator Nobel economics laureate James Tobin who died earlier this year.

        Canada has shown leadership on some of these issues, going back to preparations for the 1995 Halifax Summit. Canada has cancelled about $1.3 billion in official debts owed by developing countries. Canada has pushed for enhanced debt relief through the IFI’s Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. However, Finance Minister Martin has expressed frustration at the slow progress through this process, acknowledging that only five countries have received HIPC terms and three of these continued to have unsustainable debt burdens. At the April IMF/World Bank meetings he called for quick corrective actions. Many of our witnesses would like to go much further towards an outright and unconditional cancellation of the debts of the poorest countries, arguing that in some cases debts have been repaid several times over through debt servicing, are simply unpayable, or should be repudiated as "illegitimate" in other respects.³¹

        The Committee is sympathetic to the case for stronger debt relief measures on the part of the G7 countries. However we are not convinced that no elements of conditionality are needed, since this would seem to eliminate incentives while inviting further "moral hazard." Countries which are making efforts at poverty reduction and at good public administration, democratic and anti-corruption reforms should be entitled to more favourable consideration. As importantly, as John Hoddinott observed in Halifax: "To just write off debt without addressing the causes of that debt is not sustainable long-term development strategy. To put sustainable strategies in place takes time and effort …".³² He illustrated the point by reference to the case of one of the poorest African countries, Malawi, which under HIPC terms is supposed to produce a credible poverty reduction plan but does not yet have a meaningful capability to do so. The lesson we draw is that debt relief needs to be linked to other development reforms and to capacity building assistance.

Recommendation 5

Canada should promote within the G7 substantial additional debt relief for the poorest countries linked to effective G7 support for improvements in transparent and democratically accountable governance, anti-corruption measures, and the implementation of credible long-term poverty reduction strategies in those countries.

        With regard to mitigating and hopefully preventing financial crises, we again take note of Canadian leadership in this area. Minister Martin has long advocated mechanisms for a more timely and orderly resolution of such crises. The G7 Action Plan which seems to be taking shape and will be discussed further at the meeting of G7 finance ministers in Halifax, June 14-15, would involve debt repayment standstills, collective action clauses in loan contracts that would make it easier to renegotiate debts which become unpayable, but also up-front limits on the amount of future financial bailouts. Ultimately, as outlined by Mr. Martin, it should lead to an "international bankruptcy court" which would establish clear rules and expectations to apply to cases of sovereign debt crises as now exist in domestic regimes governing financial failures.³³

        The Committee welcomes movement in this direction, noting that we addressed some of these proposals at an earlier stage of development, and in the context of reforming the IMF and relieving multilateral debt burdens, in our report for the 1995 Halifax Summit.³⁴ We also appreciate the point made by the Halifax Initiative Coalition that: "A debt arbitration mechanism should be independent of IMF control as the Fund itself is a creditor and is subject to the political dictates of its largest shareholder, the U.S. While an arbitration tribunal might assist in orderly debt work-out, it will not assist in the prevention of crisis."³⁵

        Finally, the Committee acknowledges the interest of many witnesses in a Tobin-type currency transaction tax as a possible measure to help stabilize short-term capital flows which could have the side benefit of raising finds to apply to international development goals. Indeed we agreed in our previous 1995 pre-Summit report that the idea merited G7 study.³⁶ Some witnesses mentioned the favourable resolution which was passed by the House of Commons in March 1999. While several of our witnesses were sceptical as to the feasibility and efficacy of such a tax, the Halifax Initiative submission refers to a positive February 2002 report commissioned for the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation on how a transaction tax might be applied to exchanges in the new euro currency. In addition, witnesses urged consideration of other regulatory measures to exert more effective governance over the immense transnational flows of money facilitated by global financial liberalization, so that this is not exploited for international crime and even as a source of terrorist financing. The submission of ATTAC-Quebec in particular also called for a crackdown on money laundering and other forms of financial crime, as well as on tax evasion through tax havens and harmful tax competition.

Recommendation 6

Canada should continue to provide leadership within the G7 on improving international mechanisms for the management of international financial crises and the aversion of recurrent and future crises, including through the establishment of an independent international bankruptcy court. In the context of a G7 action plan on financial stabilization, Canada should support a feasibility study of a Tobin-type currency transaction tax. Canada should also push for more effective implementation of OECD conventions and other international instruments in order to combat bribery, corruption, the exploitation of transnational financial networks for criminal purposes, and to put an end to tax evasion, notably that based on the existence of tax havens.

Looking Beyond Growth: Promoting Justice and Sustainability

        In a variety of ways, many witnesses told us that a standard growth-oriented paradigm of global economic development is not only not good enough, but may be leading us down the wrong path, neglecting the common good and values which matter to Canadians. Speaking with passion and compassion, they sometimes took to task the narrowness of the G8 economic agenda and challenged us to rethink certain assumptions.

        Of particular concern were issues involving human rights — including the right to live in peace — and linking socio-economic with ecological justice and sustainability. Witnesses argued that aid, trade, investment and other policies geared to expanding economic activity need to be governed within a framework that affirms internationally recognized rights and that results in patterns of production and consumption that will be sustainable for the global environment over the long term. Among the suggestions for the G8 were making its agenda "human rights sensitive";³⁷ utilizing innovative indicators of human development progress; promoting the use of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises; applying high common standards of conduct to export credit agencies; instituting accountability standards in the international marketplace enforced through independent monitoring, auditing, and compliance mechanisms. In regard to the latter, Rev. Clint Mooney of Churches and Corporate Responsibility, Calgary Group, contended that: "Adopting an International Code of Business Ethics is a necessary ‘next step’ in ensuring that human rights standards, environmental agreements and labour standards are put into practice. The behavioural predictability and economic stability that would follow from the adoption and enforcement of such a code would be good for business, good for governments, good for the environment, and good for human communities around the world."³⁸

        With respect to environmental sustainability, some witnesses took the view that prevailing approaches to economic growth must be changed. For example, Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax warned that: "Environmental degradation puts at risk whole ecosystems, whole regions, and in some cases entire countries. The economic costs and death toll from environmental degradation will, if we continue on our present path, dwarf the impacts from any terrorism attack."³⁹ Derek Paul on behalf of Science for Peace contended that "old policies and attitudes will have to change" if the global "ecological footprint" is not to increasingly exceed its sustainable maximum.⁴⁰ Others, like Desirée McGraw, Montreal director of the G8 research group, were concerned that Canada was lagging on environmental matters, but looked to the G8 Summit in June as well as the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Johannesburg in September, as providing "Canada with an ideal opportunity to re-establish its role as environmental champion".⁴¹

        In Toronto, Sarah Blackstock of Greenpeace Canada put forward as priorities for G8 attention action on climate change commitments, including the Kyoto Protocol, and on renewable energy initiatives, including the adoption of recommendations in the report of the G8 Task Force on Renewable Energy. As she put it starkly: "The energy choices the world make in the next 20 years will determine our collective development path for decades to come. Shall we choose to continue to go down the ‘conventional’ energy development path, using fossil fuels, nuclear and other 19th and 20th century technologies, despite the fact that they are ultimately unsustainable and have not delivered even the most basic energy service to the 2 billion of the world’s poorest?"⁴²

        These may be provocative and contestable points of view. But they indicate very legitimate concerns about the direction of current policies and global trends, concerns which undoubtedly resonate with large numbers of Canadians and which the Committee believes the G8 ignores at its peril.

Recommendation 7

Canada should urge that, in responding to the challenges of economic globalization, measures considered by the G8 take into account positive or negative impacts on progress towards realizing international human rights, social, cultural, and environmental goals.

---

12         Statement prepared for the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the International Monetary Fund,
            Washington D.C., April 20, 2002.

13        Cf. International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook: Recessions and Recoveries, Washington, D.C., April 2002;
            Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Economic Outlook No. 71, Preliminary Edition, Paris,
            released April 25, 2002.

14        The “Big Mac index” devised 16 years ago by The Economist magazine indicates that the U.S. dollar, notwithstanding recent declines,
            has never been more overvalued compared to the average of the other big currencies than now. (“Big MacCurrencies”, The Economist,
            April 27, 2002, p. 76.) According to C. Fred Bergsten of the Institute for International Economics, the size of the United States’ trade deficit
            means that it needs to attract US$500 billion in financing every year from the rest of the world. He argues that if the combination of currenc
            misalignments and current account deficits is neglected by the leaders of the world’s major economic powers, the result could be an
            outbreak of trade protectionism and a dollar crash jeopardizing global stability. (“The Transatlantic Century,” The Washington Post,
            April 30, 2002, p. A19).

15        These selections are intended only to give a sense of the testimony across the country. They should be read in conjunction with the full
            submissions and documentary record of the meetings.

16        Cf. Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy, World Bank Policy Research Report, Washington D.C., 2002.

17        The submission of the Canadian Wheat Board to the Committee in Winnipeg on May 6 argued that: “If  the 2002 G8 Summit wishes to
            seriously address the question of strengthening global economic growth, it should do so by considering the problems that will be facing
            agricultural trade following the passage of the U.S. Farm Bill” p. 5.

18        Professor Cohn presented some findings from his forthcoming book, Governing Global Trade: International Institutions in Conflict and
            Convergence, for the Ashgate G8 and Global Governance Series.

19        Canada and the Future of the World Trade Organization: Towards a Millennium Agenda in the Public Interest, June 1999.

20        Building an Effective New Round of WTO Negotiations: Key Issues for Canada, May 2002, especially p. 12-28 including
            Recommendations 2-8.

21        Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalization and the Fight Against Poverty, Oxfam, April 2002, p. 8 and passim
            (http://www.maketradefair.com).

22        Gauri Sreenivasan and Ricardo Grinspun, “Introduction Paper 1,” Global Trade/Global Poverty: NGO Perspectives on Key Challenges
            for Canada, CCIC Trade and Poverty Series, Ottawa. March 2002, p. 1.

23        Submission, May 6, 2002, p. 3.

24        Source: Sreenivasan and Grinspun, op.cit., p. 5.

25        The elements of a Canadian approach to improving ODA effectiveness were outlined by Finance Minister Paul Martin in an April 21
            statement prepared for the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The Canadian International
            Development Agency (CIDA) has also conducted extensive consultations on strengthening aid effectiveness and the Committee was
            told in Vancouver on May 6 that Cabinet will shortly be considering a new strategy in this regard. Minister for International Co-operation
            Susan Whelan confimed in an appearance before the Committee on May 23 that this CIDA document will be released publicly in July 2002.

26        According to provisional data released by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in May 2002, the ratio for the G7
            countries declined from 0.19% in 2000 to 0.18% in 2001, whereas the ratio for the non-G7 countries increased from 0.45% in 2000 to
            0.46% in 2001.

27        The Reality of Aid 2002: An Independent Review of Poverty Reduction and International Development Assistance, IBON Foundation Inc.
            Manila, 2002, section on Canada prepared by Brian Tomlinson of CCIC, p. 177.

28        Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development, World Health Organization, Geneva, December 2001.

29        Evidence, April 16, 2002, Meeting No. 68, 9:25.

30        Submission, February 27, 2002.

31        The Halifax Initiative Coalition defines “illegitimate debts” very widely to include: “debts that cannot be serviced without causing harm
            to people or communities, odious debts incurred to strengthen despotic regimes, debts contracted for fraudulent purposes, debts whose
            proceeds were stolen through corruption, debts that became unpayable as a result of creditors unilaterally raising interest rates.”
            (Submission, May 14, 2002, p. 2)

32        Evidence, February 27, 2002, Meeting No. 61, 9:55.

33        Paul Martin, “Foreign Debt: There’s a Better Way”, The Globe and Mail, May 8, 2002, p. A15.

34        SCFAIT, From Bretton Woods to Halifax and Beyond, May 1995, p. 40-42.

35        Submission, May 14, 2002, p. 2.

36        Cf. From Bretton Woods to Halifax and Beyond, p. 55-58, including Recommendation 18.

37        In that regard, in addition to the submission from Amnesty International, the Committee received a lengthy follow up brief from Rights &
            Democracy on “Human Rights and Democratic Development in Africa: Policy Considerations for Africa’s Development in the New Millennium
            in Preparation for the G8 Summit”, May 21, 2002.

38        Submission, Calgary, May 8, 2002, p. 2.

39        Submission, Halifax, February 27, 2002.

40        Submission, “Essentials of Foreign Policy Decision Making”, Toronto, May 7, 2002, p. 24.

41        Evidence, February 27, 2002, Meeting No. 62, Montreal, 15:40.

42        Submission, May 7, 2002, Toronto, p. 3.