Conflict in Mali 
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 16, Mr. Barry Devolin in the chair)
[Table of Contents]
| That this Committee take note of the conflict in Mali. |
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to rise to participate in today's take note debate on the situation in Mali.
As members of this House will know, this debate is only
one part of our government's commitment to engage parliamentarians in
Canada's reaction to the conflict in Mali, following on the footsteps of
last week's meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Development.
It is also in addition to previous briefings by senior
officials held for members of both the NDP and Liberal Parties following
a direct offer from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is our hope that we will find consensus on this important matter.
Late last March, a coup was undertaken by junior officers
of the Malian armed forces, which brought an end to two decades of
democratic government in that country. The junta, led by Captain Sanogo,
deposed President Amadou Toumani Toure and took place despite the fact
that presidential elections, in which President Toure was not a
candidate, were scheduled to take place a month later, on April 29,
2012.
The coup in Mali was a major setback to the country's
development plans and damaged its ability to protect an already weak
northern Mali. It was a serious blow to that country.
Canada reacted quickly and strongly to condemn the coup
and to demand the return of constitutional rule. On March 21, as soon as
the first news of the coup was received, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas and Consular Affairs)
expressed deep concern about the attacks by members of some elements of
the armed forces on the presidential palace. They called on the
perpetrators of these attacks to immediately withdraw and to respect
democracy. They insisted that differences must be resolved by dialogue
and democratic process to restore security and stability for the long
term.
Two days later, to underscore Canada's insistence that
Mali again find its way back to democratic and representative
governance, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Cooperation took decisive and strong action to suspend direct bilateral aid transfers.
As one of the poorest countries in the world, Mali's
government has had little ability to control the northern part of the
country, and in the past decade, terrorist groups have been able to work
freely in the region. In January, the main rebel Malian group, the
National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, or MNLA, following the
return of armed Tuareg rebels from the Libyan army, attacked Malian
forces and started to advance from the north.
The MNLA was supported by foreign terrorist troops, such
as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, as well as by the Salafist
movement Ansar Dine, comprising both Malian and foreigners. Following
these attacks, the Malian army collapsed.
The March 2012 coup that toppled the government led to
political disorder, which permitted various groups of Islamists and
extremist militants to drive out Malian government forces and capture
the northern two-thirds of the country. For the first time in history,
terrorist groups were in control of a large geographic area that could
have served as a base for destabilizing southern Mali and neighbouring
countries in the absence of a constitutional government that could serve
as a legitimate interlocutor with the international community.
The occupation of the north worsened the already
precarious humanitarian situation in Mali, where approximately 4.23
million people have been affected by the humanitarian crisis. The
terrorists imposed a harsh form of Sharia law and destroyed many
protected cultural sites in the town of Timbuktu.
The UN Security Council, on December 20, 2012, adopted
resolution 2085, which wisely places emphasis on both the political
track and the security track to resolve the situation in Mali. To that
end, our government has been actively exploring ways to support
resolution 2085 and the efforts of the Economic Community of West
African States and the African Union in finding a sustainable solution
to this crisis.
In response to an invitation from Mali for support in
stopping a terrorist advance into the south, France started air strikes
in Mali on January 11, 2013. Canada supports the French initiative. We
believe that the establishment of a safe haven for terrorist groups in
this region is a threat to Mali, to its neighbours and to the broader
international community.
At France's direct request, Canada was pleased to extend,
after an initial one-week period, a CC-177 Globemaster aircraft until
February 15, 2013, for a total of one month, to move French equipment
and personnel to Mali's capital of Bamako. It is important to note that
this aircraft is only available to France and that this aircraft and
Canadian armed forces personnel have not been and will not be part of
combat operations.
Throughout this process, we share with our partners and
those in the AU and ECOWAS the objective of Mali's return to fully
democratic and constitutional rule.
(2005)
Our government strongly believes that there can be no
progress on a political track without security in Mali. There cannot be
long-term security in Mali without the political stability brought by a
democratic government. We must support the return of a government in
Mali whose political legitimacy is achieved through free and fair
elections.
On January 17, 2013, Canada's ambassador in Bamako,
together with the ambassadors of the U.S., U.K., France, Denmark and
Sweden, urged interim President Traore and his government to present a
road map to restore democratic governance. We are pleased that 12 days
later, the Mali National Assembly unanimously adopted the road map to
elections. These polls are to be held at the end of this July.
Last week, at a specially convened African Union meeting
to raise funds for the African-led international force in Mali, or
AFISMA, which was created under United Nations Security Council
Resolution 2085, and for the Malian security forces, the international
community pledged $455 million to support international efforts against
terrorists and extremists in the Mali and Sahel regions. Canada
announced an additional $13 million in humanitarian assistance for Mali.
This new funding will be channelled through NGOs and international
organizations.
Canada stands ready to help a democratic Mali build a
better, brighter future for all Malians, as they hope to maintain their
country's territorial integrity. While we are hopeful that the actions
being taken by the interim government to restore democratic governance
in Mali will result in positive steps for that country, we remain
vigilant and want to ensure that words are not only words but are
followed up by real action.
Canada will be monitoring the implementation of this road
map to confirm that it is implemented in a manner in which civilian
authority is reinforced and fully restored in the lead-up to and during
the presidential and legislative elections. We need to be clear on where
we hope Mali will be one year from now and two years from now. We want a
stable and peaceful partner to address the real needs of the Malian
people and the security threats that straddle man-made borders.
Canada will work diplomatically and with our allies on
how to address the many complex facets of the situation in Mali. We look
forward to today's debate.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, there is an analysis I think is important when it comes to the
situation in Mali right now. It is that this is a regional situation; it
is not just about Mali. I think the parliamentary secretary mentioned
that.
There has been some concern on our side in that,
unfortunately, the government is actually retreating from Africa,
particularly this part of Africa. I note that this year, there will be
$377 million in cuts. Disproportionately, 62% of those cuts will come
out of Africa. We have shut four embassies in Africa. The countries of
focus we had have been reduced by eight.
My colleague said that we supported the road map, which
is great. I support that as well. The EU was instrumental in that and
supported it. The problem, though, is that we have not put our money on
the table when it comes to the road map, separate from the $13 million.
We have about $18 million or more for the C-17.
I would ask my colleague if the government intends to financially support the road map, and if so, when and with how much.
(2010)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his participation
in the foreign affairs committee hearings on this very important
matter.
As the member would know, in addition to the $13 million
of new money for humanitarian assistance directly related to the
internally displaced persons in Mali as a result of this crisis, Canada
has been one of the largest donors to Mali in the international
community for more than 20 years. In fact, Mali is one of Canada's top
20 countries of focus. Since 2007, the Canadian government, through
various CIDA projects, has been spending, on average, over $110 million
each and every year in Mali.
It is certainly not the case that Canada is abandoning
Mali or any other part of Africa. In fact, we are putting in more money
than ever, and we are one of the largest donor countries in the world in
that region.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I noted
with interest his statement that Canada will be willing to support a
democratic Mali in the future.
Could my hon. colleague tell us what Canada should do,
not only to support a future democratic Mali, but to help that country
create a democracy and democratic institutions?
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, as the hon. member will know, of the $110 million Canada has
been spending each and every year for several years now in Mali, some of
that programming was in fact for the building of democratic
institutions in Mali.
Mali was, prior to the unfortunate coup in March 2012,
one of the most successful democratic countries in Africa. We hope that,
after this short crisis, it will return to being that very successful
democratic country.
Canada will continue to support Mali, as it has in the
past. Of course, the government is always open to suggestions. We are
negotiating and speaking frequently with our allies in the region and
with the Malian government about how we can best support the return to
democracy in Mali.
I will be clear that Canada will hold the current
government of Mali to that road map to ensure those democratic reforms
actually occur and those free and fair elections take place this July.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, members have been encouraged by the initial success of the
French forces. I am sure the hon. member agrees with me on that point.
It is fairly clear that the French wish, as do we, to hand off the
military part of the security as soon as possible to African-led
initiatives.
It is therefore curious that the government has not
participated in the $450 million funding of AFISMA, which is the main
African-led security entity, which will be the entity that steps in to
deal with the Islamist threat.
My question to the hon. member is fairly simple. Why is it that Canada has not helped with the funding of AFISMA?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, as the hon. member will know, and I think he made it very clear
in his question, the key word is that it is African-led. Canada thinks
that is important. Most of the international community thinks it is
important that, in fact, the solution in Mali is an African-led one.
Canada is contributing more than $18.7 million through
the supply of the CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft and the crew involved.
We are also addressing the humanitarian needs. Through our CIDA
programs, we will continue to fund and work on the development of the
democratic institutions in that country.
I should also point out, in terms of humanitarian aid,
that Canada has supplied food and nutrition assistance to some 1.3
million people in Mali, as well as to 142,000 refugees in Niger,
Mauritania and Burkina Faso. It has supplied lifesaving water and
sanitation assistance to more than 49,000 people in that country and the
surrounding region, as well as vaccination of more than 58,000 children
in that country, who are being displaced because of both the
humanitarian and drought crises in the region.
(2015) [Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am worried that the debate has started off on the wrong foot.
The hon. member was asked two very specific questions, but he danced
around them instead of responding. I will repeat them, and hopefully
this time he will answer.
Our colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie
asked him what the government is willing to do to help the Malian
government on its journey toward democracy. The Government of Mali has
had its funding cut. It will be very difficult to be effective in Mali
if we are not working with the government.
The Government of Canada asked for a road map. That was
the right thing to do. Since we are working towards a road map and an
election, why not cautiously restore direct relations with the Malian
government as much as possible? That was the first question that did not
get answered.
Second, the member was asked why we are not involved in
the UN initiative to help train African troops to be effective and
disciplined so that the locals are treated decently and so that missions
are effective. Why is the Canadian government not taking part in this
initiative when so many of our allies are? It is easy to say that
Africans must take charge, but it is our role to help them take charge. I
hope that this time, we will get some answers to these specific
questions.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I guess it is the position of the member's party, the Liberal
Party, that Canada would give money directly to a government that is not
democratically elected today. This is a government that came about as a
result of a military coup. Perhaps that is the Liberals' position. It
is not a position that this government would take, and I do not think it
is a position that Canadian voters and taxpayers would want us to take.
However, we will be assisting the democratically elected
government that will emerge from the free and fair elections in July, we
hope. We will continue to support the democratically elected government
of Mali in the future through the democratic development programs that
we have done in the past.
With respect to the member's question about support for
training or putting soldiers on the ground, it is certainly not our
government's position that Canadians should be involved directly in any
combat mission in harm's way in Mali, but I hope he would know that
Canada has participated in training ECOWAS troops in surrounding
countries over the last several years, and they have been quite
successful. Soldiers from some of those countries are participating in
the African-led force that is fighting against the rebels in Mali.
Canada has made a fairly significant contribution there,
but if it is the position of the Liberal Party that Canadian soldiers
should be involved in combat operations in Mali at the front lines, that
is not something this government is going to support or promote.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this important debate on Canada's role in the conflict in Mali.
[English]
This debate helps us provide much-needed oversight of
Canada's actions with regard to Mali. From the outset, the government's
position on this situation has been inconsistent. Ministers have sent
mixed messages. One said there would be military trainers on the ground
in Mali, and then another said there would not be.
The Prime Minister
announced the contribution of a C-17 aircraft for a week, and then it
was a month. The government said it was giving additional aid, and then
it said it was not, and then it said it was. This is a government whose
foreign policy is guided by drift.
This approach of deny and delay is not good policy, nor
is it strong leadership. The government must be clear about both the
purpose and the level of our commitment. Canadians deserve to learn
about Canadian foreign policy from their own government, not from the
Twitter feeds of foreign leaders.
That is why the official opposition New Democrats decided
that parliamentary oversight of the Mali mission was urgently needed
through debate in the House and study at the foreign affairs committee.
(2020) [Translation]
The Government of Canada needs to be honest with Canadians. It is as simple as that.
[English]
When we take part in a conflict, when we put our people
and resources on the line, we must take every step with our eyes wide
open. From the beginning, on this side of the House, we were taking the
advice of the United Nations. On October 12, 2012, the UN Security
Council, which has the primary responsibility for international peace
and security, adopted resolution 2070 on Mali.
[Translation]
The resolution talks about a humanitarian crisis that is rapidly deteriorating.
[English]
It talks of widespread and serious human rights abuses
against civilians: killing, rape, hostage taking, pillaging, theft,
destruction of cultural and religious sites, recruitment of child
soldiers, the very worst of crimes.
[Translation]
The situation in Mali poses a threat to international peace and security.
[English]
For that reason, New Democrats were steadfast in our
support for an international coordinated response to the crisis in Mali.
While the Conservatives were dithering, we called on the government to
support these international efforts. The role of the international
community in Mali is evolving and Canada needs to be engaged and
involved.
Most immediately, Canada needs to support the ongoing
transfer of command to the African-led AFISMA force. Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been raised internationally to help AFISMA. Not
a single dollar of it was Canadian.
Canada must also monitor and engage with the growing
possibility of a substantial UN peacekeeping force in Mali. Sadly,
Canada will not be at the table when the subject comes before the
Security Council. The government's alternation between disengagement and
divisiveness has weakened Canada's voice on the world stage, but that
should not stop us from engaging in peacekeeping and peace-building.
The political situation in Mali is complex and constantly
developing. We are encouraged that the interim government agreed to a
road map for political renormalization, but long-term peace and
development in Mali will require negotiation and peace-building with the
groups and individuals holding local power in the rural north.
[Translation]
This is the fourth time the Tuareg minority has rebelled
against the central government. Peace cannot be maintained if the
minority's grievances are not addressed.
[English]
When we take a look at the situation on the ground, it is
important that we differentiate between the diverse groups involved.
Tenuous links last year between the main Tuareg rebel
group, the MNLA, and the radical Islamic group, the Ansar Dine, have
long since dissolved. The two groups do not share ideological or
political goals. The Tuareg population has been campaigning for an
independent territory in northern Mali ever since Malian independence in
1960. Radical Islamist groups are a more recent phenomenon. For
instance, the group known as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb was first
developed in response to the Algerian military's secularization of the
country in the 1990s. It is an example of how events in one country can
easily spill over into another, just as weapons from Gadhafi's Libya
spilled into Mali, enabling the rebellion that sent this country into
crisis. Small arms that were unleashed before and during the Libya
conflict have played a significant role in fuelling this conflict.
I call upon the Conservatives to stop playing a spoiler
role in negotiations for arms trade treaties so that we can prevent
future crises.
Despite the MNLA's support for the international
intervention and its rejection of terrorism, there are worrying reports
of continued vengeance attacks against Tuaregs by Malian soldiers and
civilians.
(2025) [Translation]
Social reconciliation in Mali will be a long-term
challenge. Any action taken in that regard cannot be effective without
the development of democracy.
[English]
In 2007, the government supported the creation of a new
agency tasked with promoting international democratic development. What a
great contribution that agency would have made, at this time, in the
Middle East and Africa. However, the promise was not kept.
Then the government promised it in 2008. The promise was
not kept. Then it promised it in 2009. The promise was not kept. Then
the government stopped talking about it.
In the years that followed, Rights and Democracy, the
closest thing we had to a democratic development institute, was
systematically dismantled and destroyed—an obvious mistake at the time, a
historic blunder in retrospect.
While the radical Islamists controlled the northern part
of Mali, they committed numerous and egregious human rights abuses,
including amputations and killings under Sharia law.
At the same time, we are all concerned by recent
allegations by human rights groups of abuses by the Malian army,
including summary executions and tortures. These allegations demand
investigations.
Canada must be standing against all violations of human
rights, and we must build capacity in countries like Mali to end human
rights violations committed by armed forces.
[Translation]
In addition to serious abuses, chronic problems persist.
The Sahel region is facing a huge food crisis. Half of Mali's population
is living on $1.25 a day. The need for humanitarian assistance is
urgent.
[English]
Some 390,000 people have been displaced from northern Mali.
The UNHCR has reported that displaced people are already
beginning to return to some parts of the country previously controlled
by the extremists. Swift action is needed to monitor and secure the flow
of people and ensure that everyone can return home safely, soon.
However, we cannot confine ourselves just to Mali's
borders. Weak governance throughout much of West Africa creates a
serious risk that conflict and crises could spill over. A whole of
region approach is needed to achieve long-term peace and security and
development.
Canada has the experience and the ability to take a
leading role in this capacity-building effort. Unfortunately, this is
made far more difficult by the government's political and financial
withdrawal from the region. By closing our embassy in Niger and by
disproportionately cutting development assistance to Africa, the
government has weakened Canada's ability to lead.
Canada should be a leader in resolving the current crisis
and in helping the Malian people build a better future. We are not
doing that yet. We have not come up with what the world expects of us,
and we have not come up with what Malians need.
[Translation]
We can do better. We must do better.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the member is unfortunately factually incorrect about something
very important he mentioned both in his speech and in his earlier
questions and it is incumbent upon me to correct him. Canada did not
close its diplomatic mission in Niger. In fact, it did not have a
diplomatic mission there. It had a CIDA office in Niger and the Canadian
ambassador to Niger then, as now, is accredited from Bamako, Mali.
Perhaps he should look into the history and correct himself on that.
That would answer a lot of the questions he was asking himself in his
speech.
In addition, the member should know that despite the CIDA
office in Niger being closed, Canada continues to have significant
diplomatic missions in Bamako, Dakar, Abidjan, Accra, Abuja and
Cameroon, all in the area. I do not think it can be fairly said that
Canada is reducing its diplomatic representation in the region.
Could my colleague comment on his quote on January 8 on
CBC when he said, “We would be very different. This is what the NDP
would be doing right now. First of all, we'd be engaged with
peacekeeping, peacebuilding and conflict resolution”. That sounds like
Canadian troops in the region. Perhaps he could explain that.
(2030)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is interesting that the member mentioned Niger. I did
underline the point that we were retreating from Africa in development
and diplomatically. We have closed embassies.
I want to enlighten my friend about the fact that the
government has retreated from peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Canada is
53rd now in contributions to the UN when it comes to that.
A significant document just came out in January from the
UN, which lays out what peacekeeping and peacebuilding is about. I will
share that with him later. It is about ensuring that we resolve
conflict, that we use resources not just troops and that it goes through
the UN. I welcome him to look at that.
The problem the government has is that it cannot deal
with the facts. It is basic arithmetic. We will be cutting $377 million
from the CIDA budget. That is the government's numbers. This means that
disproportionately we will be hurting Africa. What is the government's
response when we ask it what it is doing there? It tells us that it has
sent our trade minister
there and he is in Nigeria trying to negotiate free trade agreements. I
am sorry, but when the house is burning, one does not try to get a
better mortgage.
The situation at hand has to be dealt with. The
government does not understand that we have to be present, that we have
to commit resources, that at the last minute we cannot pretend that we
are contributing, because that just does not work.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I hope our colleague from Ottawa Centre
might expand on his assertion, which he touched on briefly in his
comments, with respect to the government's overall approach with respect
to the African continent.
The Liberal Party believes the government has by and
large turned its back on Africa. It is not interested in developments
socially, economically or culturally that have taken place in Africa. We
have closed consulates and embassies. We have reduced Canada's presence
on the African continent. Obviously now we are dealing with a very
difficult and real threat posed by the extremists in Mali and with the
possibility of spreading to other regions of that continent.
Could the member for Ottawa Centre,
who has considerable experience in foreign affairs, share with the
House and Canadians his view on the government's failure to engage in a
broad dialogue with partners in Africa in a way that we would have much
more influence than we do arriving at the last minute when, as he said,
the house is on fire, trying to work with others to help put out the
fire?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the best way to understand the government's approach to Africa
is to remember a very historic foreign affairs committee meeting when
African ambassadors came to our committee. This was very unusual. They
came because they had not been consulted when their countries' budgets
had been cut. It was a basic communication. I know the government would
say that it did not cut as much as they were suggesting, but it was a
matter of just understanding that to have a relationship and a
respectful they had to be engaged. The fact that right now we have a
government that is more focused on trade deals in Africa than dealing
with the present crisis underlines it all.
Finally, we also have to understand that this is about
how our country is represented not just in Africa. What is Japan
contributing? Over $100 million when we contributed $13 million. In case
members of the government side did not understand, Japan does not have
the same historic relationship we have had with the region or the
country.
It is a matter of does the government want to deal with
the situation in a historic Canadian way or will it just do it on the
seat of its pants? As I said, it seems to be a government that is guided
by drift.
(2035)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my NDP colleague and his party want to keep throwing money at
Africa. They apparently think entering into trade agreements is not the
right thing to do. They talked about Nigeria being on fire. Nigeria is
not on fire today.
The Minister of International Trade
recently visited Nigeria and Ghana on a very successful trade mission.
It was unrelated to the crisis in Mali. We believe the solution to
Africa is to help these people build their economies, to give them a
hand up not just a handout.
The NDP wants to keep shovelling money into Africa. That
has not worked. We want to build trade, jobs and prosperity for the
African people. That is what Canada and this government are doing.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the member's question displays in graphic detail the problem
with the government. I gave an analogy that a part of the region of
Africa was on fire and that it was not the time to talk about trade
deals as the solution, which is what happened when we asked their own
officials at committee. We asked what the government was doing right now
in Africa. The response was that the minister was on a trade mission in
both Nigeria and Ghana. That was not the question. The question was
what the government was doing right now about the region that needed our
help. It does not need the Minister of International Trade negotiating a trade deal. That is for later. Today it is about helping the people of Mali.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my colleague put his finger on the problem when he said that
ever since this government came to power in 2006, CIDA has really turned
its back on Africa.
Would he not agree that ideology is what is behind all this? The Minister of International Cooperation
himself has said and done things that fly directly in the face of what
Canada has always done in the area of international aid, particularly in
Africa and especially francophone Africa.
That is what is happening in Mali right now. I think we
need to do more in tonight's debate than simply criticize this laxness.
This is a clear, deliberate reflection of this government's ideology, as
the Conservatives themselves have said. The Minister of International Cooperation
has said so. They treat international aid as though they are doing
business. Their priority should of course be to eliminate poverty.
However, assistance to Mali at this time is woefully inadequate,
probably because of the Conservative government's new ideology.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is interesting to watch the government in terms of how it
applies what in fact is the mandate of CIDA, and that is to alleviate
poverty, et cetera. It seems to be going down the path of wanting to
support private enterprise, which we have no problem with, but whose
private enterprise? Are we there to support our private enterprise or
the private enterprise of the people in the region?
The Conservatives have changed their programs away from
what we have considered the mandate of CIDA to look to support Canadian
enterprise in other countries. Not only does that suggest ideology, it
is really bad public relations when we are trying to help a country and
what we are offering is support for Canadian enterprise and not private
sector people on the ground in those countries we are trying to help.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I appreciate the fact that the government has given us the
opportunity to have this discussion tonight. I want the Canadian public
to know that the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition on this subject and I also had a chance to speak with him as well.
From the Prime Minister's comments in our one discussion, and I had a couple of discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
I had a sense of deep caution on the part of the government. I had a
sense that it was looking for support and a broad consensus in the House
of Commons as to what would be appropriate for Canada to do.
I will tell the House what I told the Prime Minister.
I said that we live in a shrinking world. We live in a world where
violence in one corner, whether it is Timbuktu, Gao, Kabul or anywhere
in the world, places that perhaps Canadians 15 or 20 years ago would
have said what did it matter if people were killing each other in some
place that seemed to be far away. The answer to that simple question is,
it matters a lot, not only morally, not because we are morally
connected to what goes on in the entire globe, but because our
interests, our security interests are directly affected. We cannot
afford to be narrow, isolationist or small minded about how we look at
problems in places far away, so we have to avoid thinking in that way.
We also have to avoid thinking ideologically. It was the
great Conservative, Edmund Burke, who said once that there was no
greater menace than to govern in the name of a theory. We cannot govern
in the name of a theory. We cannot say that we think Latin America is
more important to us than Africa, which the Conservatives did say. They
said that they would concentrate more on one part of the world than
another.
We cannot afford to say that we will not fall in with the
United Nations, that we will do it on our own. The reality is we do
these things together.
Yes, the government has been very careful to say it will
give the French a cargo plane for a week. What if the conflict lasts
more than a week? What if it lasts beyond February 15? The parliamentary
secretary says that we will find out. Yes, we will find out. Therefore,
I do not know why the Government of Canada would not say that it takes
this conflict seriously and that it will keep its plane running as long
as it feels it is necessary to protect the security of Mali, to protect
the security of West Africa, to protect the security of Canada and to
protect the security of the world. Why would we not take that position?
(2040) [Translation]
I am not suggesting that we should consider free trade as
unimportant, because how could we make Africa safer, then? We cannot
look at safety and terrorist cells in Africa without also considering
Africa's prosperity.
Africa's prosperity and economic success has obvious
links with the political context and the safety of populations, as we
know. We cannot export a blueprint for democracy the same way we export
cars or minerals.
I believe that some ideas and values are universal, such
as freedom, freedom of speech, equality and the need to respect the
dignity of every person. But the most vital and critical issue at stake
is safety and terror. We need to say it, we need to say the word out
loud. We should not be afraid to say that there is terrorism involved.
Terrorism is a problem not only in Africa, but around the world.
The organization responsible for the worst human rights
abuses in Northern Mali has been labelled a terrorist organization not
only by the United States, but also by the UN.
[English]
We have seen an important evolution in international
governance and international law. We now have a situation where the
United Nations is naming non-governmental organizations that are a
threat to the stability and security of the world. We should not think
that this list is limited, or that it will not find itself in some other
part of the globe over the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. We do not know.
President Obama gave a great inauguration speech, but he
said one thing with which, personally, I disagree. When he said a decade
of war is over, I can only say, with great respect to the president,
that we do not know that. We should not assume that, knowing how
dangerous the world has become. Nor should we say that we will deal with
this in an ideological fashion, or that we think that there is a
military solution to everything.
I know the parliamentary secretary is going to be on his
feet saying, “Should there be Canadian boots on the ground”? We know
there are special forces now in Mali. I have said publicly that I have
no objection to that. If it is necessary for special forces to be there
to protect Canadian interests, then they should be there. We should not
be shy about that.
However, we also need to understand, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre
pointed out, that it is a complex situation. It is security. It is
democracy. It is an issue that goes right across north Africa.
Therefore, we need a comprehensive approach.
The government seems to have a philosophy, which was once
associated with a former leader of my party, Mackenzie King, of whom it
was said he would never do by halves what he could do by quarters. I
would hope that the government would not be quite so cautious. I would
hope that the government would explain to Canadians why these things are
connected, why a country, which many people could not even place on a
map, nor could they name the countries that surround it, is important to
the world and is important to Canadian interests. If there is
instability in Mali, there is instability in Mauritania. We have two
distinguished Canadian diplomats who spent 133 days captured by
terrorist forces. Are we going to sit around here and say we do not
really think these are critical interests?
My view is that we should be very clear. We support the
United Nations, not in some kind of blanket way that says whatever the
UN says or does is right, but when the United Nations Security Council
says there is an interest, Canada should take an interest.
It is interesting that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
was explaining to reporters the other day why Canada was not able to do
more in Syria. What did he say? He said there is no Security Council
resolution that would allow us to do more. Now we have a Security
Council resolution, which is why I say Canada should not be so timid. We
should not be so reserved. We should be supporting. As the
parliamentary secretary said, it should be African led.
I said that to the Prime Minister.
I said that to have a mass of Canadian troops going in would not
necessarily be the wisest course, but nor should we reject the principle
that we can train, we can be present and we should never say on a
blanket basis that there will never be a Canadian troop in Mali. That is
not sensible.
We have to take steps against terror and, to put it in
colloquial language, we have to whack them back. We have to give them a
disincentive to violence, a disincentive to terror and a disincentive to
punishing their own people. We have to recognize the regional nature of
this and also, potentially, the long-term nature of this. We need a
strategy of which we can be proud.
We are not doing as well as we could. We are not doing as
well as we should. We are not doing as well as we have done in the past
and we are not doing as well as we should be doing in the present.
However, I still appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate
and look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues.
(2045)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank the interim leader of the Liberal Party for his speech
and his acknowledgment that this debate is happening tonight because the
Prime Minister took the opportunity to reach out to the Leader of the Opposition
and the leader of the third party to build a broad consensus of
Canadians and parliamentarians about what Canada ought to be
contributing in Mali.
I have to say I am a little surprised by what I am
hearing. It is unusual. If most people listening to this debate heard
the hawkish comments coming from across the aisle about whacking the
enemy, they would think it was coming from this side of the House. It is
actually coming from over there, which I find interesting.
I do not know where the call is coming from to have
Canadian troops in Africa. In fact, right now Canada is doing the same
thing as the British and the Germans. We are supplying heavy lift
transport aircraft to our allies, the French, who have a long-term
interest and experience in the region. They have bases in the region.
They are fighting a very successful mission. They pushed the rebels out
of the cities. As far as we know, it is going very well. There is no
need at this point for Canada to send its troops to Africa. We are doing
what they are asking us to do. If and when they ask us to do something
more, we will certainly consider it.
(2050)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the parliamentary secretary is saying that to say we need to
whack them back is hawkish, but to support the French, who are whacking
them back, is what? Baby hawkish, sparrow light, hawk light? What is the
hon. member talking about? It is ridiculous.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Bob Rae: Mr. Chair, my friends in the New
Democratic Party are also supporting what the French are doing. My
friends in the New Democratic Party are also taking the position that we
should not just say we will give them a plane for a week, or maybe give
it to them for two weeks. We are saying if our allies need a plane, we
are there to support them. If they need training, we are there to
support them. If the United Nations African-led mission needs support,
we are there to support them.
The parliamentary secretary says Canada is doing the same
as the Germans and the British. The British and the Germans are
supporting the United Nations force. They are giving money to the United
Nations for the work they are doing. We are not doing that. We are
giving $13 million in humanitarian aid out of a package of $65 million,
which has already been frozen.
On the question of democratic development, let me say
this. It is a subject about which I care quite a bit. Canada is the only
country now in the OECD that does not have a comprehensive program for
democratic development around the world. The Europeans have established
an enormous endowment to fund their work in support of democracy. The
Americans have had it for a generation. We developed it with Rights
& Democracy and then the Conservatives blew it up. Canada needs a
strategy for democratic development.
Let me say to the parliamentary secretary, where is
Canada going to be in support of the election process? That is where we
need to be. That is what we need to be doing.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, the member for Toronto Centre raised some good points, but I think we need to dig a little deeper.
What is going on in Mali was foreseeable. When NATO
intervened in Libya, everyone fled to Mauritania, Algeria and,
primarily, Mali. That is why this crisis has exploded in Mali. A
strategy is needed to avoid having the same thing happen in Mali and
having everyone to flee to Niger. That would be dangerous, because there
is uranium in Niger and Mauritania.
There is no military strategy, and the country has never
had one. Intervention is done on an as-needed basis. It is as though the
government finds out about conflicts in the newspaper like everyone
else. Something is not working. I would like to hear what my colleague
has to say about that.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Speaker, I will do my best but I do not really have enough time to answer the question.
I agree with my colleague when he said that these things
are related. That was the first point that I wanted to get across at the
beginning of my speech. We cannot look at these situations as being
completely isolated from the reality of the region and more distant
realities.
There are repercussions on the situation in Algeria, the
situation in Libya and the situation throughout the region. We therefore
have to develop a strategy that recognizes that there is a security
problem, a military problem, a development problem, a democracy problem
and a prosperity problem. These problems are all related.
At the end of the day, Canada must not exaggerate what it
can do, but it must also not diminish the role that it can play, as my
colleague Senator Dallaire said yesterday evening on the CBC. He clearly
said that we need a humanitarian strategy in order to help enforce
international laws anywhere in the world, particularly where we are
aware of security risks.
We have seen it. The French are going into big cities and
have had some amount of success. However, we have to learn how
guerrilla warfare works. We have to understand that people will go into
the mountains and into rural areas but that they will still be there.
They will not disappear. They will cross international borders. That is
why we need a regional, military, political and economic strategy.
(2055) [English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, Major-General Vance was asked at the committee meeting last week
what Canada's military goal was. After some hesitation, he said
essentially that our military goal is to support France. He was not able
to state what our military goal is and so by default it appears that
our military goal is France's military goal and France's military goals
are ours.
Similarly, Canada has been asked to support the
African-led initiative pursuant to a UN resolution, but we have not
responded. Therefore, we are in this situation of adopting another
nation's military goals and not responding to the United Nations'
request for funding for AFISMA.
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my disagreement so far with the government is that I think it is
too reluctant to recognize that once the French initiative takes on its
leadership role and does what it has to do, clearly the next plan is to
transfer as much responsibility as we can to the African-led force and
the UN-led force.
Also, this is not the only region in Africa that faces a
tremendous crisis in security. Congo, East Africa and the entire hub
down from Sudan right through to Tanzania is an area of conflict and
great violence where the UN has been involved. However, Canada has not
been engaged, not even financially, in a sufficient way in terms of
training and having a strategy.
We live in a world where we need a strategy for every
region. We need a strategy for international organizations that are also
trying to do the job. That is the approach we need to take, not one
where we ask how little we can get away with or how much rhetoric we can
use to denounce violence and extremism, which are things that the
Conservative government is excellent at.
I would imagine the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has put out more press releases in the last two years than any minister
of foreign affairs in the history of western civilization. However,
that is not the question. I congratulate him for it. John Kennedy once
wrote a book called Profiles in Courage. The minister shows a
whole lot more profile than he does courage, when it comes to saying
where we are actually going to get the things done that we need to do.
It requires a greater understanding of working within
the framework of the UN and the African Union, being supportive and
looking at training. It requires having a strategy that is military,
security-based, democracy-based and one that is not afraid to talk about
prosperity and the economy. All those things have to be part of the
broad strategy.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank the House for the opportunity to discuss our support for
the people of Mali during this troubled period in their country's
history.
Before I tell the House about Canada's response to help
those affected by the crisis in Mali and the wider Sahel region, I want
to explain why Canada's development and humanitarian work is important
to Canadians.
Canada is a compassionate neighbour. When there is a
need, Canada responds. We are ready to lend a hand to help those in
need. Freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are Canadian
values. These values drive our government's engagement in the
international community. These values are the keys to help struggling
nations reach their full potential.
When a drought leads to famine and widespread human
suffering, we respond, as we did in the Horn of Africa in 2011 and the
Sahel region of Africa last year. When a conflict and instability
scatter communities and endanger lives, we respond, as we are doing in
Mali right now. We do this by delivering lifesaving assistance in the
quickest, most efficient way possible, providing food, shelter and
medical support to the most vulnerable.
In 2010-2011 alone, the Canadian International
Development Agency responded to 40 natural disasters in the developing
world and answered 68 calls for help in Africa, the Americas, Asia and
the Middle East.
When we help countries stabilize and secure their
societies, we help prevent violence and criminal activity from spilling
over Canadian shores. When we help countries practice good governance,
we advance freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Mali is one of the poorest and least developed countries
in the world. It ranked 175th out of 187 countries in terms of human
development in 2011. In practical terms, that means just over half of
the population lives on less than $1.25 a day. Mali's infant and
maternal mortality, disease and malnutrition rates are significant.
Nearly three-quarters of the country's citizens can neither read nor
write.
Despite such challenges, prior to the coup Mali was a
positive example of democracy in the region for more than 20 years. It
had a vision for how to reduce poverty and develop the country. Up until
the coup it was putting that plan into action.
In recognition of these efforts, CIDA selected Mali as a
country of focus in 2009. Over the years CIDA's projects in Mali, aimed
at reducing poverty, improving the health of women and children and
increasing access to education, have all achieved considerable success.
In 2010, CIDA helped to provide primary students with
more than 1.2 million new textbooks. The textbook industry in Mali,
which our assistance helped to establish, saved the ministry of
education about $850,000 by repairing and extending the lifetime of
textbooks.
Between 2007 and 2010, Canada's contributions to saving
the lives of women and children in Mali helped to increase the rate of
assisted childbirths by 2%. Two percentage points may not sound like
much, but to all of those mothers who survived a difficult labour and
gave birth to a healthy baby, those two percentage points were the
difference between life and death.
During this same period 92% of children under the age of one were vaccinated for five childhood diseases.
This is why it is so troubling to witness the
deterioration of security and stability in Mali. It is the consequence
of terrorist networks seeking ripe opportunities to exploit the most
vulnerable.
The establishment of a safe haven for terrorist groups in
this region is a threat to the broader international community. As the Prime Minister
noted on January 8, “The development of essentially an entire terrorist
region in the middle of Africa is of great concern to everybody in the
international community”.
As members know, Canada suspended its
government-to-government assistance to Mali after the coup. However, to
be clear, Canada is still very much engaged in helping the people of
Mali during this uncertain time. CIDA continues to help those in need
through NGOs and multilateral organizations by supporting education,
health care and working with farmers to reduce food insecurity.
(2100)
Where security permits and access has been possible, we
have continued to deliver humanitarian assistance through our
international partners, who are all working hard to meet the most
pressing needs of Mali's most vulnerable people, particularly women and
children. We call on all parties to provide full access so that
humanitarian needs and the safety and protection of humanitarian workers
can be addressed.
Humanitarian agencies report that an estimated two
million Malians are food insecure or are at risk of food insecurity.
More than 385,000 people have been displaced by this conflict, including
more than 236,000 within Mali itself, and another 153,000 who have
sought refuge in Burkina Faso, Niger and Mauritania. Our partners on the
ground tell us that refugees have arrived in these neighbouring
countries exhausted, hungry and in need of basic services such as
shelter, medical care, food and water.
Through Canada's support, emergency food and nutrition
assistance have been provided to an estimated 1.3 million people
throughout Mali, as well as refugees in neighbouring areas. Our
assistance is also helping 3,000 vulnerable households access food and
other basic necessities through cash transfer and cash-for-work
initiatives. Our assistance has helped more than 39,000 Malian children
gain treatment for severe acute malnutrition.
Canada is also providing support to ensure that Malian
refugees receive essential items such as blankets, kitchen sets, shelter
and sanitary supplies. Our support has allowed the international Red
Cross movement to distribute essential household items and hygiene kits
as well as food to an estimated 600,000 people affected by the conflict.
This assistance is on top of the Government of Canada's matching
funding for the Sahel crisis.
This matching funding addressed the overall food and
nutrition problems in the Sahel region, and the people of Mali receive
lifesaving assistance as part of the initiative. Between August 7 and
September 30, individual Canadians donated more than $6.9 million to
help people in the Sahel. Our government complemented this generosity
dollar for dollar.
Last week, at the donors pledging conference in Ethiopia, the Minister of International Cooperation
announced that Canada is providing an additional $13 million for a
number of initiatives aimed at addressing pressing humanitarian needs.
We are closely monitoring the situation and responding to the needs of
vulnerable Malians as they arise, particularly for women and children.
Development assistance delivered through multilateral
organizations and non-governmental organizations is helping to ensure
that critical services continue to be available in southern Mali. This
type of support is critical to avoiding social unrest in the south and
to stabilizing the country. A stable south means more efforts can be
concentrated on the security situation in the north.
While the conflict persists, our government will work
hard to protect Mali's hard-won development gains, while doing
everything we can to meet the country's immediate humanitarian needs and
contribute to maintaining social stability in the south.
Our response reflects Canadian values. These values guide
our very way of life and have earned us our exemplary global reputation
for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada will
continue to do right for those in need.
(2105)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the parliamentary secretary mentioned a number of important
things the government is doing, and also intending to do. Everyone who
sees what is happening in Mali and the region understands that a
long-term commitment is required. The government has said on many
occasions that it has committed more than $100 million over the last
couple of years to Mali. That is fine, but there seems to be a lack of a
strategy for the region.
As we have said before on this side of the House, to
actually make a difference in the region we must have long-term
commitments from Canada that are seen by everyone as predictable.
However, we have seen cuts to our countries of focus in Africa and
decided to withdraw some of our other assets from Africa.
Would the member agree that this comes at a cost? If she
does not, where does she see us going in Africa if we have a regional
crisis like we have in Mali? In this regard, she mentioned the food
crisis. That is something that does not go away overnight.
I do not understand how the government can say on the one
hand that it intend to do all of these great things, but on the other
hand withdraw resources. If we are withdrawing resources, does the
member or the government not understand that it undermines not only our
capacity but also our credibility?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, we have not reduced our funding to Africa. In fact, our
government has doubled Canada's support to Africa. Most importantly, we
have untied our aid to Africa, giving them far more freedom to make
choices in how they can access the food and products they need at a
better cost. Let us be very clear on that point, first of all.
When we look at the regional issues, before the Sahel
drought even started, Canada was aware that a situation was developing.
We were there with $42 million to help preempt the situation we saw
happening in the Horn of Africa the year before, to ensure that food
security would be taken care of and to put some long-term planning in
place so that those things would not happen.
The coup and the conflict in Mali were unforeseen by
anyone. However, we are there, helping the Malian people with
humanitarian aid right now. We have been there in the past with $110
million, year over year, that Canada has contributed to help Mali be a
country that is growing and developing good governance.
One of the things that Canada—
(2110)
[Table of Contents]
Order. Hon. member, we appreciate that, but we need to move on with other questions and comments.
We appreciate that hon. members all want to participate,
and I would ask hon. members to keep their comments and responses to
around a minute or so, if they can.
Questions and comments.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I want to see if I can get more precision on the numbers that we hearing.
I heard that Canada's annual contribution to Mali was $90
million, but now I hear it is $110 million. It was frozen after the
coup.
First, how much of that has not been spent? If it is not spent this fiscal year, what will happen to it?
Second, with respect to the $13 million that was announced by the Minister of International Cooperation
last Tuesday in Addis Ababa at the UN-convened meeting, does it come
from that pool of money, or is it fresh money coming from somewhere
else? If so, where?
To get a precise picture of the aid that is being given, I
would appreciate it if we could get some precision on those numbers.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank my colleague for that question. We were actually in
Africa together two weeks ago. We have been in West Africa on previous
Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association trips and have seen some of the
issues as they have unfolded.
To answer the member's question, Canada has been
contributing $110 million per year to Mali. That money is frozen at the
moment because we are not going to give that money to an unelected
government. We will wait until the elections take place, and then we
will reconsider how we will go forward with that pool of money.
The $13 million that was announced in Addis Ababa last week by the Minister of International Cooperation is indeed new money that CIDA is contributing to humanitarian aid.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions.
My first question relates to some remarks the
parliamentary secretary just made. In committee, witnesses from CIDA
told us that, even though the Mali government was not receiving any more
direct support, most of that money had been redirected to grassroots
non-governmental organizations. The parliamentary secretary seems to be
saying something totally different. I would like some clarifications.
Also, will the parliamentary secretary admit that the
last budget slashed CIDA's funding by $377 millions, and that these cuts
mostly affect African countries?
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am happy to repeat that we have actually doubled our aid to
Africa. The money that is going into Africa today far exceeds that from
any previous government in Canada. Doubling that money is only one
component.
The second, as I already said in a previous answer, is
that we have untied our aid to Africa. That gives freedom to African
countries to make use of that money to buy the products they need,
perhaps food or pharmaceuticals. They are able to access those products
at far better prices from other places in the world. Therefore, untying
our aid has given great freedom to Africa to benefit far more from the
money we are contributing.
(2115)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, this has been a very important debate and will continue to be for some more hours.
I want to ask my hon. colleague this. There is something
in the history of how these rebel forces in Mali got hold of so many
weapons, and the trail seems to lead to Libya, where some of the people
whom we supported in the effort to get rid of Colonel Gadhafi opened up
warehouses and shipped large amounts of weapons to al-Qaeda forces. Some
of the people we supported in Libya were in fact themselves previous
al-Qaeda fighters.
How do we learn from this? How do we ensure that in
future when we enact, under the responsibility to protect, the need to
go in to protect the civilian population, we do not inadvertently side
with people who are prepared to turn warehouses full of weapons into a
flow of arms to terrorists who will of course allow conflict to spill
into areas that had previously been peaceful?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, what we have heard from officials is the suspicion that many of
the weapons left long before the conflict in Libya even started or was
finished.
I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition, though, who actually said on January 15 on CBC Power and Politics:
| I don't see the link necessarily between our intervention in Libya, which was a UN mandate directly to NATO based on the UN charter, protection of civilians who were being attacked by their own government. It's too indirect. |
What he is trying to allege as a link to Mali would judge
Mali on its merits and look at information put on table if need be, so
we are not sure there is a link there.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I wanted to pursue the aid to Mali, and I take the hon.
parliamentary secretary at her word when she says, roughly, it is $110
million, of which the government portion, the money that was directed to
the government, and I would understand that to be about 40% of that
money, has been frozen. The balance, however, has not been frozen, and
that has been distributed to NGOs working on the ground.
The question really is: Did the $13 million that the
minister announced last week come out of that frozen money and has
simply been in effect reprofiled from government-directed money to
NGO-directed money?
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I do not think the opposition likes to take no for an answer, or yes for an answer for that matter.
The $13 million is new money. The minister announced that money in Addis Ababa. It is new money.
It is the government-to-government direct money that has
been suspended. We are still working with our NGOs, humanitarian
partners, multilateral partners on the ground, and will continue to do
so.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss today the very serious situation that has developed in Mali.
I hope you will not mind if I share a personal
experience. I have been to Mali several times, mainly to work with our
Malian colleagues, the representatives of civil society, as part of the
Forum on Human Security. Mali was part of the Forum, and Canada was an
active member at the time. I met extraordinary people who were working
very hard to build a better Mali, a Mali for all, a safe Mali. In light
of recent events, I cannot help but think of them, their families and
all Malians of course.
In recent days and weeks, there have been fairly positive
developments. French forces and the forces of the African Union—mainly
from Chad in recent days—are making progress. That is good news for two
reasons: first, we can see the progress that is being made, and the
African Union is helping. That is key.
(2120) [English]
When talking about the African Union's efforts, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
said a few minutes ago that it should be African-led. I am sorry. Maybe
it is my misunderstanding of the English language, but I do not think
that African-led means Africa alone. It can mean African-led but with
our support. Therefore, I do not think that arguing African-led is
reason enough to say that we would not support this effort through the
various means available to us, as other countries have done. I am
thinking of the U.S., which gave $96 million to AFISMA. The EU gave $67
million and Germany gave $20 million. The African Union itself gave $50
million to AFISMA, on top of the contribution from its member countries
in time and money. Canada has given nothing.
Let us move away from the military side, especially as this is not only a military issue.
[Translation]
There are political, social, humanitarian and development
issues associated with this situation. I will talk a little about the
humanitarian aspect because that is the most urgent.
We are talking about 390,000 people who have been
displaced within Mali and to neighbouring countries. We know that
neighbouring countries are already in the middle of a terrible food
crisis. We have to be there, we have to help these people and the
organizations that are on the ground.
The government was pleased to announce a Canadian
contribution of $13 million. That is a step in the right direction, and
the projects funded by this contribution are beneficial, but we have to
admit that it is not very much. By comparison, Japan has provided 10
times as much, or $120 million in humanitarian aid even though it is
experiencing serious financial difficulties as a result of the tsunami.
Unlike Canada, it does not have historic ties with Mali. Canada's
contribution seems rather paltry by comparison.
The humanitarian situation is a short-term issue. We must
help those in need and look ahead to the future. We need to look at the
long term and ensure that this does not happen again, in Mali or in the
other countries in the region. That requires development as well as
social and political dialogue in Mali and the other countries in the
region.
We must help these countries build democracies that
create opportunities for everyone. And Canada can play a unique role in
that. As I said, we have historic ties with Mali and a number of
countries in the region, through our francophone population, our shared
language and our expertise in democratic development in the traditional
sense. But we are far removed from Africa. No matter what the members
opposite say, we are far removed. Our presence is being felt less and
less in the region, and this is a regional issue.
Cuts to CIDA have reached $377 million, and this is
having a disproportionate impact on African countries. Embassies are
closing. For example, we are pulling out of Niger, a potentially
problematic country that borders Mali and that we should stand beside.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
is telling us that it is not a big deal because we have embassies in
Dakar, Abidjan and so on. When I hear that, it makes me wonder if people
think that Africa is the size of Portugal or Greece. But Africa is
huge.
In Dakar, I was responsible for five countries. I am not
afraid of hard work, but I had as much work as I could handle. I do not
see how someone in Dakar or someone who is involved in the current
situation on the Ivory Coast can also cover Niger and another country
such as South Africa even, or Malawi and why not a few other Latin
American countries while we are at it.
This lack of coverage prevents us from having people on
the ground who are closely monitoring the situation. Clearly, the work
people do on the ground does not produce quantifiable results. However,
it gives us a presence. It allows us to show that we are partners, and
it helps us to understand the situation. That is absolutely essential.
On one hand, we are moving away from Africa but on the
other, we are unfortunately moving away from a sector in which we have
exceptional expertise, for which we were known and which formed part of
Canada's brand—if I can call it that—as a promoter of democracy.
I have heard my colleagues say that we will support a
democratic Mali. However, it is not enough to support a democratic Mali
or to say that we want Mali to be a democratic country and hope that it
happens with the wave of a magic wand. We also have to lend a hand.
Great Britain is providing $3.1 million to support the
political process. And what are we doing? We are waiting on the
sidelines, waiting and watching and becoming more and more
insignificant, a partner that does not count. This is preventing us from
influencing events as we would like.
I would like to close with a plea for Canada to once
again invest in democratic development. Why was the institute for
democratic development that was promised by the Conservatives in the
2008 Speech from the Throne never set up? Why did they destroy
organizations such as Rights and Democracy, which had a quarter of a
century of expertise?
Instead of just saying we support Mali, Canada should really be there and really help the people of Mali.
(2125) [English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my friends in the NDP seem to be a little confused. They have
said many times tonight that Canada closed its diplomatic mission, its
embassy, in Niger. We did not do that. Canada did not have an embassy in
Niger. It never did have an embassy there. What it had was a CIDA
office. Niger is covered from Bamako, Mali. It was then and it is now.
There has been no change.
They keep saying that Canada is reducing its
contributions to Africa. That is not true. Canada has doubled its
contributions to Africa since the levels of 2003-04 under the former
Liberal government.
My friend asks what Canada is doing with respect to
AFISMA. First, the building that AFISMA is operating out of was built
largely with Canadian money. There would not be an AFISMA headquarters
if it were not for the support of the Canadian government and the
Canadian taxpayer.
The members want to know why Japan is putting in $100 million in and Canada is putting in, most recently, $13 million.
Canada has been contributing to Mali since 1960, not
Japan. Canada has been putting in $110 million each and every year for
many years. Most of that money, as we have discussed tonight, is
continuing. It is only the money that was going directly to the
government of Mali, which has been frozen because that government
currently is not a democratically-elected government.
Canada is one of the largest donor countries in Mali. It has been before and it continues to be today.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I would like to make a few very brief comments.
Basically, we are taking people off the ground. Yet we
need people, human beings, to be there, people who are involved,
engaging in dialogue, and who can observe and report on the situation
and influence events. But those resources are being cut off. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
is also telling us that the Conservatives have not reduced funding to
Africa. It is too bad that it is not my turn to ask him a question,
because he could go back and look at the numbers in the latest budgets
and note that CIDA's budget has been frozen for years and that
significant cuts were made in the last budget. If he were to look at
where these cuts have been made, he would see that they have been made
primarily at the expense of African countries.
I am very pleased to learn that a building built largely
with Canadian money is being used by AFISMA, but this kind of
retroactive support for this African effort really leaves me perplexed. I
will say no more, for I wish to remain courteous.
As for Japan, indeed, it was not a major contributor in
Mali. Japan contributes a great deal to international co-operation. Mali
does not have any particular historical ties to Japan, but
nevertheless, Japan still gave $120 million, while Canada gave a measly
$13 million.
(2130)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I am
pleased to congratulate one of my NDP colleagues, since I have not been
too kind to them this week. But I was very happy to hear such an
excellent speech.
My question has to do with the government's attitude, as
expressed by the parliamentary secretary, who said that, since we have
given a lot to Mali in the past, we do not need to give them more now.
What is going on now? The country is experiencing a major crisis and it
has been crippled by a horrible terrorist attack. And the government is
saying that we will give only $13 million, because we have given a lot
in the past. What kind of reasoning is that?
How can the government distance itself from a country we
have invested so much in, a country with which we have many ties and
that is a member of La Francophonie? How does it look when we give $13
million and refuse to work with the UN? How does that policy look?
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I would like to respond with a metaphor.
Imagine that we had invited people over to eat a number
of times and we felt that we had a good and supportive friendship with
them. Then one day, their house burns down and we give them three
carrots, saying that we already fed them three months ago. That is
unimaginable. We did things in the past. Now there is a crisis and we
are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. That is disturbing.
It is even more disturbing that Canada is not showing
solidarity and support for a country in need that is experiencing crisis
after crisis, and also that our international reputation and influence
are losing ground.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I would like to take advantage of the fact that my colleague has
the floor to ask her to talk some more about Rights and Democracy.
For 20-odd years, Mali was an example of democracy for
neighbouring African countries. This government's band-aid solution of
simply throwing money at the situation is not really a long-term
solution, and it clearly demonstrates the government's unwillingness to
take long-term action in a region that is so crippled by humanitarian
crises.
How can Canada play the role that it has always
played—or, rather, that it played until the Conservatives came to
power—and bring democracy back to Mali so it can once again become an
example for so many African countries?
(2135)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, yes, Mali has had difficulties and crises. It is also a country
where the people have often taken charge of their own fate and tried to
hold national consultations. But this country faces tremendous
challenges. It is a large and extremely poor country with a deep divide
between the north and the south. It is very complex. And that is the key
point because not only is there is a lack of will, but I get the
impression that there is also a lack of understanding.
I will go beyond the member's question and not speak
exclusively about Mali. If we invest in promoting democratic
institutions, we can often prevent or minimize conflicts. A small
investment in an organization such as Rights and Democracy, which was
internationally recognized, paid significant dividends in preventing
these conflicts, social issues and security issues. And these security
issues could potentially affect all of us. They need to be prevented.
Whether we are talking about foreign affairs,
international co-operation or some other issue, this government does not
seem to understand the concept of prevention.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, given that whenever the government announces new money, we
pretty well need to have the PBO, the AG and KPMG certify that it is in
fact new money. Also given that the CIDA budget has been on a steady
state of decline from about $5 billion to $3.5 billion now and given
that the minister has to my knowledge not received an order-in-council
that this is fresh money, it therefore follows the new money that has
been announced is not actually new money, that it has come from
somewhere. I suggested to the parliamentary secretary that it was
actually coming out of the frozen money that was held back from the
current government in Mali.
When the parliamentary secretary says this is new money, does the hon. member believe her?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it really depends on how we define new money. I do not think
that any money has been added to CIDA's budget to do that. My
understanding from CIDA's official briefing is that this money comes
from the humanitarian fund within CIDA. Therefore, it is an envelope of
money which is there waiting and the minister can take money in that
pool. No money has been added to the CIDA budget to my understanding for
the $13 million.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is an honour to be part of tonight's debate. We on this side
are all delighted that it is happening at this time, so soon after the
international community has seen some success in its efforts to support
Mali in restoring legitimacy to the authority of a government over all
of its territory, and particularly in the north.
I would like to touch on two aspects of the crisis Mali
is facing. First is the root of the matter, how we got here, the back
story, who is a threat to Mali and through Mali, to all of us. Second is
the question of the military imperative that is now being met, in part
by French forces in support of Malian forces, and increasingly by
African forces, which all along wanted to take the principal role and
were authorized to take the principal role under last December's U.N.
resolution. They are filling in behind French forces as progress
continues.
On the root of the matter, it is important to go back
some time to remind ourselves just where these terrorist extremists
organizations that finally ended up in northern Mali came from. The
story begins with a once upon a time, almost, recollection that one now
needs to reach back toward in 1988.
Once upon a time there was a rabble rouser, an extremist
called Osama bin Laden, who brought a group of friends together in
Peshawar, Pakistan in the summer of 1988. Some hon. members here were
not even born then. He decided that contributing to jihad in Afghanistan
was not enough, that he was going to find an organization that would go
to Kashmir, that would go anywhere in the world, that would attack not
just the Soviet Union, but the United States. He called it al-Qaeda. He
spent five years at that time in Pakistan.
We will recall that soon thereafter he felt the call to
go back to Saudi Arabia. He was in Saudi Arabia for three years. He
offered the services of al-Qaeda to the Saudi government to attack
Saddam Hussein at that time. Of course, he was declined. He was actually
banished from Saudi Arabia. He went on to Sudan for four years where he
hatched other plots. He tried to kill President Mubarek of Egypt and
eventually got the call to go back to Afghanistan, which was now under
Taliban rule in 1996. There, even larger plots were hatched: Nairobi,
Dar es Salaam and the USS Cole in Yemen.
I mention this story because all of these places are part
of the regional equation which the interim leader of the Liberal party
and all of us understand has to be taken into account when we talk about
Mali, because it is part of a jigsaw puzzle. It is part of a global
effort in which Canada has played a central role, to bring a
non-governmental threat to heel, to empower governments to stand against
the kind of threat that Mali has faced now since 2010 from al-Qaeda.
Displaced from all of these other places, al-Qaeda was on
the ropes in most of these other places, even in Somalia and Yemen, and
was forced to seek refuge in the wastes in some of the least hospitable
areas of the world, the Sahel and the Sahara itself in northern Mali.
All of us working together under a level of co-operation, with the full
backing of the United Nations, which is unparalleled, certainly since
the second world war, have succeeded in preventing al-Qaeda from finding
a host. We have prevented it from taking over the whole state in some
other part of the world, as it has tried to do in Afghanistan, as it
would dearly love to do in Pakistan and as it has tried to do in other
parts of the world over this 25-year-old saga.
(2140)
Osama bin Laden is at the heart of the story. Obviously
he has not been with us, as members will recall, since the day before we
were elected to this place. Thank goodness, but that is another story.
However, some of his last orders, as we now know from documents
recovered in Abbottabad, were to re-establish outposts of his empire in
places such as Yemen, Somalia and the Maghreb.
That is why al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is one of the big
affiliates of the al-Qaeda organization and one of the few that, up
until recently, did not face the kind of military pressure or security
response that even Yemen and Somalia, with help from other African
neighbours, have been able to offer. That is why we are talking about a
threat to two-thirds of Mali. That is why we are talking about a coup in
the spring of last year. It is not because al-Qaeda was threatening to
take over the whole country but because of the army. Some of its most
disciplined units in Mali, which had been trained in part by Canada,
were unhappy that their government was not taking action and was not
ordering them into battle in the north to deal with this problem.
They went too far and made what we think was the wrong
political decision. They overthrew a democratically elected government.
In fact, the Canadian-trained units, from the information we have, were
not part of that unfortunate series of events. However, the legitimacy
was sapped out of the Malian government. Its authority was further
eroded and al-Qaeda took control, not alone, but with several other
groups, Ansar Dine, Tuareg groups, that had tilted their way, seeing how
strong they were in Timbuktu and elsewhere. The world looked on with
consternation and became increasingly concerned as UNESCO World Heritage
sites, Islamic treasures and mausoleums of moderate enlightened Sufi
saints were destroyed by these butchers who were very happy to put
people to death in summary trial but also to destroy the legacy and
heritage of all humanity.
Canada's voice was raised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs
and others on this side of the House. We were concerned but we were not
yet able to take action because there was no consensus in the African
Union, in ECOWAS or the United Nations to authorize that action.
Therefore, the resolution that came forward in December was truly
unprecedented. We have not seen that level of explicit authorization for
combat operations, African-led but supported by the whole international
community and the whole machinery of the United Nations, for many other
conflicts. Certainly none of this would have happened until that
resolution was passed in December.
Today, with the resolution in hand, we find that Mali
faces three crises. One is a political crisis, which we hope will now be
addressed with the road map and the path toward elections, and Canada
applauds that. The second is a humanitarian crisis, which my colleagues,
the other parliamentary secretaries, addressed and in which we have
invested by building on a foundation of very generous investment and
contribution over years, even decades, in good times and bad in Mali.
However, the military crisis remains. There has been progress, as
members on the other side have acknowledged. The largest population
centres in the north are now back in government hands. The Tuareg are
leaning the government's way once again as al-Qaeda pulls out of the
cities and withdraws into the mountains and other difficult to reach
places.
However, what will they do? Who will reach out and touch
them there? What will the capacity of the Malian government be to bring
them to justice? We still do not know. Much depends on investments to
come and much depends on the AFISMA mission. It has a complex demanding
mission, to contribute to building Malian defensive security forces and
support national authorities in recovering areas in the north under the
control of terrorists and extremist groups. That means combat if
necessary. As well, it is to help stabilize the country and consolidate
state authority, support authorities in protecting the population,
contribute to a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian
assistance and the return of displaced populations, protect personnel
and the mission, and it has only be authorized for one year.
(2145) [Translation]
At the request of the Malian government and in accordance
with the mandate of resolution 2085, France launched a military
operation on January 11.
Canada joined the international community in supporting
this initiative instigated by France in order to act quickly and put an
end to these attacks by Islamist groups.
Let us be clear: France acted as an African power, a
country that has military resources based in Africa. The only forces
that France has sent into the theatre in any African countries so far
were already based in Africa.
The United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Canada
have not sent troops into combat, because we did not have the necessary
resources on the ground in Africa. It is a very simple explanation.
Our support to our ally, France, is very much appreciated. We have—
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Order, please. We have reached the end of the time allocated for this intervention.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague on the government side.
What he said is backed by research. There are many
interesting facts. He definitely has a broad perspective of the
situation, a perspective that is quite interesting.
He recognizes that Osama Bin Laden is no longer with us. We can all agree on that.
Perhaps we should start talking about Canada's
involvement, what we in Canada have done so far, and about how our
interest in Mali could be expressed.
The $13 million that we have offered so far seems very
limited to me. We could do much better than that. We have close
relations with Mali. We know a lot of people there. We have companies
operating in Mali, and we have a lot of interests.
So far, the Conservative government does not seem to know
what to do about Mali, how we could intervene and what we could do.
The member is obviously quite knowledgeable, but he did
not talk about the guiding principles behind Canada's interventions in
Mali. What is the purpose? Does Canada want to provide aid? Is it
expected to follow the advice of other states or has it found its own
way of intervening? What exactly is it responding to?
I would rather like to hear things like "we have a specific action plan for Mali".
What are we specifically trying to do in Mali, and what
kind of resources will we invest? Are we going to provide more than
$13 million? Frankly, that is not enough.
(2150)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair,
of course we want to continue to invest. Of course we have invested
more than the members opposite recognize or have chosen to recognize in
this debate.
Up until 2010-11, Mali was the only country to receive
such a large amount, $110 million a year, with the exception of perhaps
two other countries: Afghanistan and Haiti. These two, three or four
countries were at the top of our list in terms of our obligations for
development.
Development is not something that happens overnight. It
is certainly not something that can be facilitated with a government
that results from a coup and lacks political legitimacy. We decided to
suspend our development assistance.
I ask my colleague to name another country that has been
as generous as Canada, on a per capita basis, when it comes to
humanitarian assistance over the past year regarding the crisis in Mali
and the entire Sahel region.
In terms of security, we continue to monitor the overall
situation. We have a small group that is training armed forces in Niger.
We want to facilitate participation in operation Flintlock in
Mauritania, which is important in the region.
We have also made considerable investments in training
the Malian army. We are no longer doing so, because that army is at war—
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Order,
please. I would remind hon. members that we have a 10-minute question
and comment period. I would also remind the many hon. members I see
standing to participate in the debate that they keep their comments,
questions and responses to around a minute or so. It works well and more
members will be able to participate.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's attempt to position this conflict
in a wider sphere. Had he had more time, I am sure he would have gone
back to the Muslim Brotherhood and the decision of the Muslim
Brotherhood in the Egyptian jails to take jihad outside of Muslim lands,
which is the actual origins of Osama bin Laden and that entire crew.
Therefore, the member agrees with us, I believe, that the
first and foremost military goal here must be the containment and
degradation of the Islamic threat, the jihad, the al-Qaeda threat.
Therefore, he would also agree, as we do, that the French are to be
supported in their initial efforts. However, what is curious in the
government's position, and I would be interested in the hon. member's
comments on this, is that the necessary second stage is the support,
training and equipping of the African-led force.
Why is it that Canada is not contributing financially to
AFISMA? Why has Canada not responded to the unprecedented, mandated call
by the UN to equip AFISMA?
(2155)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, as the member well knows, we have been supporting
capacity-building for the African Standby Force, which is part of the
African Union, since 2006. That was in line with the G8 commitment, but
our contribution was actually larger on a per capita basis. AFISMA will
be based on the principles established for the African Standby Force and
the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, Standby
Force, in which Canada has also invested, not over years but over
decades.
This is important because investments today, through a
trust fund or any other means, into AFISMA are not the crucial element.
The crucial element is the institutional capacity of ECOWAS, of the AU,
and indeed of the Malian army. We have played a role over the long term
in investing in those.
Other hon. members have asked if there is a plan. There
is a Security Council resolution that is about as explicit as I have
ever seen for an operation of this sort. It also points to the Malian
authorities, ECOWAS and the AU as the bodies that must articulate the
plan. We want to support their plan and indeed France wants to support
their plan.
It is not complete. Some of the African forces are very
capable. They began deploying in Bamako on January 21. Give them time to
spool up, to deploy to the north with the help of many allies,
including France, which has the technical airlift capacity inside the
country, and we will see what they can do, as they have performed
effectively in Sierra Leone, in Liberia and on other ECOWAS missions.
The bottom line is that our investment here is long term,
large scale and institutional. When we have had the opportunity to
invest, it has taken place in accordance with our democratic principles
and to ensure that human rights are upheld and abuses avoided.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for his very cogent and
well-thought-out speech. He takes us through what is essential history
for the region.
The member knows that France was formerly a colonial
government in the region, and that the French military has three bases
in the region. I wonder if the member could take us through how quickly
France responded to the UN resolution and how quickly Canada responded
to France's request to assist.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is important to note that history matters here, because it
helps to explain the extent of the conflict and the crisis, and the
number of countries involved. These are places where al-Qaeda, over
years, has tried to install itself. Osama bin Laden is dead, thank God.
However, al-Qaeda is not yet gone.
One of our goals, which I think we all share in the
House, is not just whacking people or organizations. I do not think we
use that term in these contexts. It is the destruction, the elimination
of al-Qaeda as a threat to Mali, neighbouring countries and the whole
world.
France acted quickly. Its troops moved on January 11.
France asked us, relatively rapidly, for this heavy transport, strategic
transport, strategic lift, because not many countries have this kind of
aircraft. We only acquired it recently. Some members opposite did not
see this as a priority for Canada at the time, but we did acquire it. It
helped us in Haiti and now it is helping us in Mali. We were the first
country to have an aircraft on the ground in Bamako serving French
forces. I think that is quite a good record.
(2200)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate tonight on
the security situation in Mali and Canada's role in it. It is an
important debate. It is important that we are having this debate as a
Parliament and are talking about executive action in this important
region of the world. It is important because we were involved in helping
to create a thriving democracy in Mali for some two decades, which has
been an independent country for only 50 years. It is also important that
there has been some consultation between the leader of the opposition,
the Prime Minister
and the leader of the Liberal Party to attempt to achieve a consensus
as to what Canada should do and a commitment and a stipulation by our
leader, the leader of the opposition, that this be brought to Parliament
as quickly as possible.
This country has a spotty record of having interventions
discussed by Parliament. We are not talking about committing to combat.
We are talking about a commitment to military assets, so far, in the
case of the use of the C-17.
We have had a developing practice, not yet a convention,
although I hope we get there, of having parliamentary oversight in a
stronger way over international interventions. Chuck Strahl, for
example, when he was a Reform MP, actually brought a motion to the House
asking for parliamentary approval before troops were put in any
overseas operations. It failed. The Liberal government defeated it.
Another Reform MP, Bob Mills, made a similar attempt in 1996, which also
failed. However, I think at the time there was a recognition, even by
the government of the day, that there was a growing sense that
Parliament ought to be directly involved. We are keeping up with that
tradition tonight in terms of talking about what potential role Canada
might play, because we are seeing a changing situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
talked about the situation with al-Qaeda. As he mentioned, the
situation in Mali has developed over the last year, starting with a coup
last March. Some people are asking why we are helping a government that
was founded on a military coup. There are two answers. The first is
that we are actually attempting to help the people of Mali, as opposed
to this particular government of Mali. The second point that needs to be
underscored is that almost immediately upon this coup taking place, the
international community, and, in particular, the regional community of
the African Union and ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African
States, acted immediately to expel Mali from the African Union. They
sent delegations there to seek to restore a constitutional government.
They received a commitment, in fairly short order, that there would be a
transitional government and eventually the development of a road map to
the restoration of democracy under the constitution of 1992. That
happened as a result of significant pressure at the regional level and
the international level with the withdrawal of international support for
the coup-led government, which almost immediately made it clear that
the government would not be able to actually operate.
We were told by officials from the Department of Foreign
Affairs that Mali was recognized by other people engaged in
international aid and development as a country that did not use the
money given to it by other countries to build up its army. Therefore, it
actually had a weak army. It was weak in terms of its strength, but it
may also have been weak in terms of its discipline, its record and its
ability to properly carry out ethical and moral operations.
(2205)
We have heard of the abuses and the allegations of
abuses. However, the reality is that the army was not strong. Once the
coup took place, Mali was a vulnerable state and was exposed to the
events that took place. The rebellion in the north was assisted by the
Islamist extremists, mainly al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and the other group
of Islamist extremists that took part in that, which led quickly to a
serious deterioration, which the United Nations Security Council took
seriously.
In a series of resolutions, beginning last July, then in
October and December, the UN Security Council took strong action to seek
the support of the international community to aid the African-led
International Support Mission to Mali using African troops, the support
of the African Union, and the support of ECOWAS. The United Nations
Security Council was acting on its mandate as the primary body for
international peace and security in the world authorizing this action
and was seeking the support of other nations.
The timing was interesting, because it was expected that
this would take several months, up to next fall, to be ready to carry
out the military mission. Events overtook the plans, which often
happens. We saw the attempt by the Islamist extremists, seeing a
weakness and seeing a delay, to take over the country.
We saw the response to that. France took action. We
supported that action. We are now in a situation where a peacekeeping
mission in Mali is being contemplated.
As my colleague from Ottawa Centre
pointed out, this is something we ought to be monitoring carefully to
see what kind of mandate may or may not come from this suggestion. It is
obviously premature to be talking about that right now . There is no
peace to keep. However, if it comes to the point where there is
discussion about that, Canada should be ready to see whether we play a
role and what role we might play. We need to consider what might be a
substantial UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. We would anticipate this
being, again, African-led. It is important to consider what role Canada
might play in assisting.
That does not necessarily mean troops. I want to preclude the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairsjumping
to his feet right after I finish to accuse us of suggesting that. I
would encourage him, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, to read resolution 2086, a new resolution of the
Security Council, which was adopted on January 21, 2013. That resolution
reiterates the role of the UN in peacekeeping. It spells out, in great
detail, the kind of multi-dimensional peacekeeping missions that may be
mandated by the Security Council. It is extremely important. All
Canadians should have a look at that, because it defines the kinds of
roles nations would be asked to play in nation-building and
peace-building in nations around the world.
I say that because my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre,
was generous in saying that Canada was the 53rd nation in its
contributions to international peacekeeping missions. We are actually
the 55th nation, according to the United Nations organization on
December 12. While there are some 80,000 troops engaged in peacekeeping
around the world, Canada contributes 11 troops and 19 police officers.
That is where we are after 35 years of being perhaps the lead nation in
assisting in peacekeeping around the world. That is just on the troop
side.
(2210)
Ten enumerated actions may be mandated. They are spelled
out in United Nations Security Council resolution 2086. It recognizes
that each mandated peacekeeping mission would be specific to the needs
and the situation of the country concerned. It is based on some very
strong principles, including the consent of the nations involved. The
mandate could include a mix of civilian police and military capabilities
under a unified leadership. Those are the benefits of the United
Nations involvement--
[Table of Contents]
In fact, we are at the end of the time allocated. We will now go to questions and comments.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I would point out to my hon. colleague that I rose very gently to my feet to ask him this question.
I listened to his speech, and I am trying very hard to
understand what it is exactly the NDP wants the government to do. I am
instructed by comments his colleague, the NDP critic for foreign
affairs, made on January 8, on the Power & Politics with Evan Solomon
show, where he said, “We would be very different. This is what the NDP
would be doing right now”. That was on January 8, just a few days after
the French troops landed in Mali. He said, “First of all, we'd be
engaged with peacekeeping, peace-building”.
Evan Solomon said, “So, is it troops on the ground?”
He said, “We would have a conversation with our partners to say 'what can Canada do?'”
Evan Solomon said again, “but you would consider...”.
The NDP foreign affairs critic replied, “[A]ll options are on the table”.
If they are not considering boots on the ground, Canadian
soldiers on the ground in Mali in some way, what exactly did his
colleague, the critic for foreign affairs, mean? Perhaps he could
explain it to us and enlighten the Canadian people on that point.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Speaker, I know that there is a bit of baiting going on here tonight by
the members opposite in the government. However, I think he has to
examine his own understanding of what peace-building and peacekeeping
actually mean. If he looks at the various 10 enumerated actions, which I
suggest he look at, he will understand that peace-building, building
and assisting in strengthening the rule of law and institutions in the
host countries, and helping national authorities develop priorities and
strategies to address the needs of judicial institutions, police,
corrections, et cetera, are some of the mandates listed there.
The fact of the matter is that the experience of
peace-building is complex. It is multi-dimensional. It may involve
assisting in a circumstance where, once peace has been achieved and we
are not engaged in combat, we can provide assistance to have greater
security in Mali.
We just talked about the inadequacies of the Malian army
in terms of being able to provide security for their country. We were
astonished, and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary was
astonished, to hear General Ham suggest that the Americans had neglected
to provide ethical training when they were assisting in training troops
in Africa. I do not think we are guilty of that. I think the training
provided by Canada and that can be provided by Canada has a different
dimension to it.
There may be ways we can be helpful. We have to first
find out if there is going to be any mission of that nature and see what
Africa needs.
I know this. When we were asked to provide financial
assistance to AFISMA to take over control of the operations, we said no.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, the curious part of this debate is the way in which the
government has been tap-dancing away from financing anything to do with
AFISMA. Obviously if we were a bit more involved with that initiative,
as are other nations to the tune of $450 million, we might actually be
into the second stage of this conflict, if you will, which is the
hand-off from the French to the African-led initiative.
One of the disturbing aspects, and in the latter part of
the response the hon. member made reference to it: the Malian army and
how ethical training is of some concern, because we have learned to our
great disappointment that if an army is not ethical, then the whole
thing is lost.
I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with
respect to the way in which Canada could be involved in the AFISMA
initiative, and particularly with respect to the Malian army, whose
casual regard for human rights may in fact be counterproductive to what
we all want to see, which is peace, order and a democratic government in
Mali.
(2215)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I do not know how far it got, but one of the notions that was
being floated around in the last few weeks was the suggestion, and I
think the French were talking about this, of the possibility of UN
observers participating in monitoring the situation to ensure respect
for human rights as an integral part of any operations that were being
undertaken between the Malian troops and the French troops. I do not
know whether that is something whose time has come and gone. That is a
suggestion that has been made.
Obviously, as the member has pointed out, if we have a
situation where there is an army that is seeking to secure the country
that we believe should have security, and it is not following human
rights principles and rule of international law, then all is lost. That
does not provide security to the population, the people of Mali.
As my colleague has pointed out, it is a very complex
situation. The exact solution is not in sight at this point, but we do
know that the AFISMA organization, which is not primarily obviously Mali
forces, is seeking to take a strong role. It will be taking control
over this from the French government and it should get all the support
it needs, starting, in this instance, with what it asks for, which is
financial support, and which so far the government has failed to
provide.
Maybe we should take one step at a time and see what the later asks are and see what other efforts come from the—
[Table of Contents]
Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, actually I am quite flattered by the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs takes such a keen interest in watching me on Power and Politics.
I will not react to his misquoting, but my colleague did do a good job
of explaining the complexities of peacekeeping and peace building. We
sincerely hope that the government, and all members and Canadians for
that matter, looks at the January 21 explanation of peacekeeping and
peace building that was passed and presented at the United Nations.
I want to touch on the road map. The government asked for
feedback from us. One of the things I think is key when we are looking
at the situation is getting Malian democracy back on track. The
government says great things about it, but as was noted by my colleague
from Quebec, other countries have contributed, Britain to the extent of
$3 million.
Would the hon. member not think it would be a good idea
for Canada to contribute to the road map, both in resources and perhaps
with human resources as well, because we have some of the best in the
world in terms of doing governance and certainly doing democratic
development?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is of primary importance that we provide some assistance. One
of the encouraging things we have seen as a result of recent events is
that the MNLA, the Tuareg group which was partnered with AQIM, obviously
has decided that it made a bad decision and is now seeking to integrate
and is willing to enter into negotiations and discussions with the rest
of Mali and seek a road map to peace.
That is something in which we do have some expertise, and
we ought to be contributing. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out
earlier in the debate, Canada is one of the few nations that does not
seek to engage in that. Instead we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs
engaged in finger wagging. I do not know if that term is any worse than
“whacking”. It clearly means that all one is doing is standing up and
wagging one's fingers and saying, “You folks should get yourselves to be
more democratic”. That is not much help from this distance, I should
say to the members opposite. There has to be engagement, and Canada has
failed in that, although we do have that capability.
(2220)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, as I have been watching the debate all night, I thought I would
just make a few observations before I get into my notes on the
humanitarian situation. The first one is that the Prime Minister
reached out to the opposition. He said this is what is going on in Mali
and if the opposition was interested in discussing it further that by
all means it could be studied at committee. We have been doing that. We
have had one meeting on it so far and we plan to have, I believe,
another two or three meetings on this over the next week or so.
I do want to thank the officials who came out to see us
and brief us. They were there last Thursday. We had Kerry Buck, who is
the political director and assistant deputy minister from the Department
of Foreign Affairs. She brought along Patricia Malikail and Lisa
Helfand, who is the director.
From the Department of National Defence, we had Major-General Jonathan Vance. I want to thank him.
From the Canadian International Development Agency, we
had David Morrison and Leslie Norton. I want to thank them for their
briefing last Thursday.
We are going to continue to talk about this situation
over the next few days. The Prime Minister reached out to the leaders of
the opposition to keep them informed and to offer up any discussion
they may want to have in the House.
As I have been listening over the last couple of hours, I
realized that not all of this relates to Mali. Some of this relates to
some of the things that we are doing as a government that the opposition
does not like. I get that. That is what the opposition is there for.
The members will challenge the government and the direction.
It was raised that maybe we did not have enough troops on
the ground. I heard that coming from the opposition. I heard that maybe
we need to spend more money. I guess the challenge will always be
whether there is ever enough money that we can spend. If we have troops
on the ground, will the question be why we put troops on the ground,
when we look at what happened in Afghanistan? It was a war that was not
started by us. The Liberals put our troops there, and then when they
became opposition, they asked when were we going to bring the troops
home.
Once again, we understand that when a party is in
government it makes decisions and will be challenged on them. Look at
the F-35. It was a process started by the opposition. It was sole
sourced and picked by the Liberals as the best plane. Now that they are
in opposition, they challenge the government, asking why we chose the
F-35. Regardless of what happens, there is always going to be noise
coming from the opposite side about what our government is doing.
We have taken a measured approach. What we have done has
been great. The opposition talks about maybe not enough money. The last
speaker said maybe we could give more money, but I look at what the
Canadian government has contributed to the region. It is over $100
million. We did not just show up in Mali. We have been there for a
number of years. Therefore, when we look at how we can help out, whether
it is the $13 million that the Minister of International Cooperation
announced, or whether it is the $18 million in kind that we are
contributing for the military strategic airlift, we have been there. We
realize there are all kinds of parts. Someone mentioned that the
Japanese contributed $100 million.
These are all great things, but it is important that we
be strategic and look at what we are doing, so we are not just saying
“me too” there, so that we can pick spots where we have been.
I may comment later, if I have time, on some other
things. Someone mentioned the fact that we are looking at trade deals in
Africa and asked why that is the case when we should have been looking
at some of these other things.
I want to talk a bit about the humanitarian situation and
the fact that we are gravely concerned about the current crisis in Mali
and the repercussions this is having on the neighbouring countries in
the Sahel region. This has been mentioned many times tonight, that it is
not just Mali that we are concerned about. We are concerned about the
whole region.
Malians living in the north have, over the last year,
been subjected to brutal treatment by armed groups and terrorists
seeking to impose a very strict form of Sharia, prompting mass
displacement. Since the crisis began, over a year ago, more than 385,000
people have been forced to flee their homes. More than 8,000 have fled
to neighbouring countries, and many more have been internally displaced.
The conflict and the activities of armed groups, terrorists and rebels
are making relief efforts more difficult.
(2225)
In order to meet the needs of those affected by the
conflict in Mali, it is imperative for the humanitarian workers to have
full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need. Secure
access is necessary to provide lifesaving assistance.
Until recently, terrorists, extremists and other armed
groups have patrolled nearly two-thirds of Mali's territory. They took
advantage of a power vacuum in the capital and occupied the remote
villages and Malian Sahara, and terrorized Malian men, women and
children.
I would like to detail for hon. members some of our
government's activities in building the capacities of local governments
to combat terrorism and insecurity in the region.
Canada contributes to counter-terrorism efforts in the
Sahel by providing training, funding, equipment and infrastructure to
developing states. In 2010, our Conservative government devoted new
resources specifically to the Sahel. The new fund targets 11 states in
the Sahel over 5 years. Mali is one of those states.
I would also note that under Canada's G8 presidency, the
Sahel region was identified as a priority region for counter-terrorism
and was mentioned specifically in the Muskoka declaration. As chair of
the counter-terrorism action group, CTAG, Canada hosted a large
multi-stakeholder meeting in Bamako in October 2010, aimed at
encouraging greater regional co-operation in the fight against
terrorism.
Our government was active and interested in Mali before
recent headlines took other parties' attention there. Since 2010, we
have provided $18 million to countries in the Sahel to strengthen their
capacity in the key areas of law enforcement, military, and
intelligence, and the legal and criminal justice regimes against
terrorism.
We co-chaired the Sahel counter-terrorism working group
focused on countering violent extremism and supporting better border
management. Prior to the coup, we provided Mali with important support
for its security forces and worked to strengthen the country's legal
regime against terrorism. We expect that a return to democratic rule
will see these efforts bear fruit.
The instability brought by the security and the
humanitarian crises in northern Mali has an impact on Canadian interests
from a security, commercial, democratic, human rights and humanitarian
perspective. It is in Canada's interest to contribute to the
stabilization of Mali and to support efforts in combatting terrorism.
That is to say, northern Mali and the whole Sahel must not become a safe
haven for terrorist organizations. Assuring the territorial integrity
of a free and democratic Mali is in Canada's interest. Our government
stands ready to help a democratic Mali build a better, brighter future
for all Malians.
These beliefs are at the core of Canada's foreign policy,
one where democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law are
invaluable principles. Our government has worked to combat the scourge
of terrorism in the Sahel region and will continue to do so.
As we have heard tonight, we have been working there.
Despite the talk about money not being delivered, we have been
contributing funds to Mali, as I said, of over $100 million. When the
coup against the government took place, we looked at getting that aid
money to organizations on the ground.
We believe it is important in that region. We believe it is important to help the people of Mali and will continue to do so.
(2230)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank my colleague, the chair of the foreign affairs
committee, for his work on the committee and his intervention this
evening.
We have been talking tonight about the present situation.
Some have given an historical perspective along with that. It is clear
that everyone agrees that Canada has to play a significant role in the
region, and certainly in Mali. The question is how we do that. One of
the things that we on this side of the House have mentioned is that it
is absolutely critical that Canada support governance in Mali so that
Mali can be revitalized as a resilient state. It is a difficult
situation because of the grievances of the Tuaregs in the north, which
go back to the beginning of Mali, as I am sure my friend knows.
The question is what more can Canada do than it has done?
I will put aside my criticisms of the current government and its lack
of action in Africa and the region, as I have put those on the record
already.
Would the member agree that two things should be done?
The first is that we should be contributing to the road map that the
government has supported. The second is that the government should live
up to its promise in the Speech from the Throne a couple of years ago to
invest in an institute for the development of democracies abroad. We
know that something is happening at the religious freedom office and one
day we will hear about when it is going to be put together, but clearly
an institute of democratic development is something that we can do. The
government promised that it would do that and should do it.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre
for his work on the committee as well. I certainly will not speak for
what the government may do in the future in terms the road map or in
looking at a centre for democracy. I know that we did commit to an
organization for religious freedom. That is one of the things that we
are moving forward with. We believe and understand that where the rights
of minorities and religious freedom are preserved, democracy also flows
from that.
I have some of the figures of what has been contributed
recently. I will not go through all of the details, but in 2009-2010
over $117 million was contributed to Mali. In 2010-2011 more than $109
million was contributed. It dropped this past year to $61 million, as we
tried to avoid directly funding the government, which we did not think
would be responsible, but instead the organizations on the ground. We
will continue to do that and look forward to the time when Mali holds
elections so that we can again support a government there.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my colleague started his speech by saying that the opposition
was asking for boots on the ground, yet no one has suggested that. It is
a pure invention. The only one who spoke about boots on the ground was
the Minister of National Defence before he was muted by the government.
After long hours of debate, we are still waiting for
answers from the government on questions that were asked earlier in the
debate. First, why in the context of this crisis is Canada not investing
in AFISMA? Why are we not committing to offering training for the
African troops? Why are we investing only $13 million, or so much less
than many other countries with fewer links to Mali than we have? Indeed,
Mali is a country in the Francophonie that we know very well. Moreover,
why are we not committing to help the democratic process?
I know we do not want to get too close to an unelected
government, but that government now has a road map for an election in
July. What will we do to be sure that this election will be held in a
proper fashion?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, not everyone from the opposition suggests that we should have
boots on the ground, but there were some thoughts that we were not doing
enough. I thought the approach that the government has taken has been
fairly measured. We have responded to the French. They asked us for a
cargo-lift plane for a week and then said they would like it for a
month, and we have been working with them to do that.
People talk about more money. How much is enough? The
point is that we have been training soldiers and elite guards. We have
been working on a number of different fronts and have been doing that
for a number of years. We have sent almost $300 million over the last
three years. I do not think anyone can say that as a government we have
not been contributing, that we do not care or that we have not been
concerned about the area.
I read about some of the initiatives we are involved in.
We realize counterterrorism is a very sensitive area and an area that
needs help. Therefore, before any crisis was happening in Mali, we were
making those investments as a government. I am sure there will be more
asked of us and there will be more requests.
Strategically, Canada wants to be able to do its part. We
have been doing our part and I think we will look for other
opportunities as this unfolds. It is unfolding differently every day.
When we had our briefing, we heard from the officials that things are
changing rapidly on the ground, so we need to continue to wait to hear
what is happening.
(2235)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my colleague mentioned that on January 31 we had Kerry Buck at
the committee. One of the things that she said was that:
| —current projects in West Africa include military training with Niger on armed forces in the context of exercise Flintlock, provision of training by police, and regional training projects for law enforcement and border security through Interpol. |
I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on that?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, we continue to talk tonight about the fact that Canada has been
contributing to the region. It has been involved in humanitarian aid and
training. It has been involved in a number of different initiatives.
One of the reasons a briefing was held in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
was to get some of this information out to the people of Canada. That
has been pretty much the tack we have taken. We have been there for a
number of years and we will continue to be there to help the people out.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our honourable
chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Development, with whom it is always a pleasure to work.
The hon. member talked about all the investments that we
have made in a number of areas in Mali, including security, health,
education and agriculture. If we want to look at this issue from an
investment point of view, since this is the term that was used, if we
want to ensure that all the efforts made are not wasted, it is important
to help Mali overcome the crisis that it is facing, and we must do so
right now.
Earlier today, another member said that the African-led
International Support Mission to Mali, AFISMA, is a key mission. Why do
we not provide financial support to this mission?
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, it is certainly nice to have a member of the committee who has
had some foreign affairs experience out in the field. We always
appreciate the comments and the input that the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie provides to the committee.
I would just say that as we continue to listen to what
the requests are and what comes in, we are supportive of the road map
and what will happen. We will continue to look at what we have been
doing over the last number of years. As I said, the average that we have
spent has been over $100 million annually in order to build democracy,
help with humanitarian aid and work on training. We will continue to
look at ways that we can do that. We were there long before this
situation happened. We will continue to be there to support Mali and its
people.
(2240) [Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, this will be 10 minutes of torture for everyone who is listening to my wonderful voice this evening.
Tonight, we are exploring the issue of Mali. The
situation in Mali and in the Sahel region is far from rosy right now.
After over 20 years of democracy, Mali is currently in a state of
serious instability. As a Canadian and a member of this House, I am
wondering about what Canada is doing to help the people of Mali.
Canada has a longstanding tradition of being a world
leader when it comes to African countries, whether through its presence
on the ground, its network of embassies or its NGOs, although that
tradition now seems to have come to an end. In fact, Canadians have
slowly been withdrawing from their participation in Africa.
From its new foreign policy to its international
development assistance policy, this government is setting a dangerous
precedent. It is important to be careful about such precedents since
critics of our traditional allies are speaking out more and more. They
are watching Canada and are confused about what is happening.
The changes are so draconian that the Minister of International Cooperation
had to create a new oath for his department's employees in order to
silence them about what seems to be a makeshift policy, as mentioned by
many of my colleagues during this debate. The government seems to view
the UN as more of a parasite than a necessary tool.
Around the time of the second world war, Canada was one
of the founding members of the UN because, at the time, we believed that
an organization made up of all the nations was necessary to bring peace
to the world and that, together, we were—and still are—capable of
preventing poverty and enhancing respect for human rights throughout the
world. In short, we believed that the nations could help one another.
The French presence in Mali seems to have proved its
mettle by driving back extremist and radical troops, almost without any
real combat. In fact, France was able to drive back rebel groups in
northern Mali. We are happy about that and we hope that Mali will be
able to return to the democratic state it has enjoyed for the past 20
years as quickly as possible and that, above all, it is able to restore
constitutional order. It is very important to mention that.
However, it seems that these troops have entrenched
themselves in neighbouring countries, which does not bode well for the
situation in a region that is already weakened by a major humanitarian
crisis.
I would like to talk about some of my concerns. From
Senegal in the west to Somalia in the east, the Sahel region has become a
breeding ground for extremist and radical groups. Given the instability
in Mali, we should be concerned about the surrounding countries. Niger
appears to have a fragile balance, and according to some analysts,
Mauritania could also be the next target of Salafist and Wahhabi groups.
We must therefore consider the serious humanitarian
crisis that Mali is experiencing, but we must also look at a long-term
solution. The same goes for the Sahel region. United Nations agencies
and their humanitarian partners have launched a consolidated appeal for
2013. We are talking about 2013, not previous years.
About $1.5 billion will be needed to help the millions of
people affected by the food crisis in the Sahel region. In Mali alone,
UN agencies estimate that a consolidated appeal for $370 million will be
needed for 2013. Once again, we are talking about 2013, not the
previous years that government members keep mentioning.
We are not denying the fact that Canada has always been a
strong partner to Mali, but right now, Canada has made a very weak
contribution in response to the growing demand resulting from this
terrible situation. I think we can agree that $13 million out of $1.5
billion is a rather small amount. I will let you do the math.
Access and security are some of the priorities. Although
the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has noted an
improvement, supplies of food and other basics in the north remain very
unstable, and food insecurity could get worse in this zone.
Access to food is just one example of something the Government of Canada could try to focus on.
(2245)
According to the World Food Programme, over
585,000 people are at risk of suffering from food insecurity. So, we are
not talking about participating in an armed conflict or sending troops,
but about protecting people against famine. These numbers are
constantly increasing.
A number of players in the field are worried about the
disruption of market supply in the north. The humanitarian community is
asking for the co-operation of Malian authorities to facilitate the
movement of commodities and humanitarian assistance to the north.
Moreover, several explosions of mines in the Mopti region, along the
main roads leading to the north, are threatening civilians and could
block relief operations.
On October 12, the Security Council had already adopted
resolution 2071 dealing with cases of abuse, sexual violence, human
rights violations and, above all, the recruiting of child soldiers in
northern Mali. Many concerns continue to be voiced in Mali regarding the
protection of human rights, after some organizations reported summary
executions and abuse. Ethnic-based reprisals targeted civilians in
certain areas formerly controlled by armed groups.
Moreover, some people living in the north are said to
have fled, for fear of reprisals. Amnesty International said that the
Malian army arrested and executed more than 20 civilians in the north.
We see an opportunity for Canada to provide monitoring and training to
avoid this kind of abuse of human rights violations. This could be done
through AFISMA, the mission led by the African Union. In fact, it is
possible to contribute to this mission but, as we mentioned a number of
times, Canada refuses to do so.
As for Human Rights Watch, it has also accused the Malian
army of summarily executing at least 13 alleged pro-Islamists, but also
armed groups of executing at least seven Malian soldiers. Consequently,
this organization asked at the end of January that international
observers be sent to Mali.
I must also mention the issue of child soldiers. Several
NGOs in Mali have reported that children are forced to join armed
groups. Under the Rome Statute, the recruiting of children under the age
of 15 by armed groups is a war crime. This crime has terrible
consequences for all populations, for children and for the families. I
think these abuses deserve special attention and action, by Canada in
particular.
Another troubling fact: according to CARE International, a
specific service for the protection of women and children has not been
established. For its part, the Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs points out the urgent need to strengthen response
capacity, primarily in order to educate people about the danger posed by
mines, to provide psychosocial support and to address gender-based
violence.
Current resources are not enough to provide minimal prevention and response. As my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie stated, prevention is important. She also said that the government does not seem to know what prevention is.
At present, no child welfare project has received
funding. Thus, not even Canada has provided funding or created a project
to protect children. We have to take action, and Canada should be a
leader in that area. Canada must do more than just closely monitor these
problems. It is fine for the Minister of International Cooperation to go to Burkina Faso. However, we have to take action, not just proclaim our good intentions.
I would also like to quickly address the question of the
Sahel and the long-term future of Mali. We have 21 embassies in Africa, a
continent of 53 countries.
My time has expired and I have only managed to say part of what I had to say. I will now take questions.
(2250)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair,
let us be thorough and precise. The hon. member encouraged us to fund
food security. The $13 million announced by the Minister of International Cooperation
is largely dedicated to meet that challenge. That amount is in addition
to the $57 million already announced for the entire Sahel in 2012, an
amount that will continue to fund operations in 2013.
However, aside from food security, aside from child
safety, which is a concern for all agencies funded by the $13 million
announced by the Minister of International Cooperation, what would the hon. member like us to do in Mali exactly, because her colleagues, the hon. members for Ottawa-Centre and St. John's East
have caused a little panic. I was on the panel looking into
peacekeeping. The resolution does not provide for a peacekeeping
operation. The United Nations resolution provides every measure
necessary and authorizes the Malian authorities to retake regions under
terrorist control. It is a combat operation.
Would the hon. member like Canadian soldiers to be involved?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I would like to begin by talking about the $13 million and
$57 million. The $13 million is part of the $1.5 billion that is needed
for 2013 alone. I can see just how good Canada's intentions are when I
see that all of our traditional allies have given at least four or five
times more. I think that it is a pittance, given that the need is so
much greater: $1.5 billion.
As for what Canada can do, I spoke at length about that in my speech. We should focus on children, women and food security.
We are talking about a peacekeeping mission. During the
20th African Union summit on January 27, Ban Ki-moon spoke about the
possibility of deploying peacekeeping forces in Mali. We are not saying
that we will participate, but Canada could play a part. We could
contribute financially to the European Union mission and participate in a
potential peacekeeping mission.
That is part of the Conservative policy that we are
criticizing. We should not be trying to fix the problem, we should be
trying to prevent it. That is what a government does. It prevents these
issues. We should not wait until someone falls, then help them up and
offer a band-aid. We should try to keep them from falling in the first
place. That is what we have been trying to do for months, in fact, for
the two years since we were elected.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech.
My question is as follows: would she agree with us, with the comments made by our colleague from Toronto Centre,
our interim leader, when he asked the government to look a little
further ahead than just a week or a month when it comes to Canada's
commitment?
There are many ways Canada can make commitments. I agree
with my colleague regarding the fact that, financially, we could be
doing a lot more. We could contribute more to the United Nations,
although this government often hesitates. There are so many ways we can
participate.
But would my colleague agree that this should be an open
commitment, in the sense that we say to our allies, our African allies,
the African Union, the European community, that Canada is fundamentally
interested in solutions that will help Mali, that will make this African
region more secure? We will not make any decisions based on the
schedule of one plane for a week or a month, but we will support the
people of Africa and our allies in order to come up with a lasting,
long-term, regional solution, and not just in a conflict zone that we
desert at the first sign of improvement, as my colleague said.
(2255)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure what kind of answer the hon. member is looking
for. Would he like me to say I agree with what the Liberal leader said?
I believe my speech was very clear on that topic. Of
course, humanitarian aid is important, as is financial aid. But Canada's
role has always gone beyond financial aid. When it comes to
peacekeeping missions, for example, Canada's soldiers do more than keep
an eye on the situation; they also monitor elections, protect civilians
and educate people.
We recognize that to facilitate the peace and democracy
process, we need to offer more than financial or military aid; we need
to contribute our practical expertise in democracy, as my colleague from
Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointed out.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
indicated in a statement that our tradition of sending peacekeepers and
contributing to peacekeeping missions was nothing but a footnote to
Canadian history.
In a simple statement about Canada's contribution to
world peace, he completely denied our Canadian values. This shows the
Conservatives' complete disregard for democracy around the world.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, in very difficult situations like the one happening now in Mali, women and children often suffer the most.
Not only is this true in time of conflict, war or
military operations like the current one, but last year's events also
showed it clearly: women and children often suffer the most. Our first
thoughts should probably go to them.
My hon. colleague mentioned child soldiers earlier. Could she expand a bit on that?
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, women and children are often the victims of war.
I have repeated this many times, in particular at the
hearings of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, a
sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Development. I asked the committee to study the use of
rape as a weapon of war.
In such conflicts, women and children are victims in the
long term. For example, children are often left to fend for themselves
when they turn 15. When wars end, these children, who have been trained
as soldiers and to kill, often consider their armed groups as their
family.
I talked about initiatives that provide psychosocial help
to families, children and women. Not one organization has been funded
and no action has been taken.
It is important for Canada, as a country that respects
the rights of women and children, to provide its expertise to Africa in
order to help these women and children break the vicious circle created
by conflicts. They are truly the forgotten victims in these conflicts.
We talk about the armed groups, but we very seldom talk about the
civilians, the women and children who are truly affected by these
conflicts.
This would be one way for Canada to show leadership, especially with respect to women and children.
I believe that all MPs will agree with me because we truly have to help these most vulnerable groups.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am pleased to lend my voice to today's important take note
debate as a humble parliamentarian and a former Canadian military member
with service in Afghanistan.
The situation in Mali is of serious concern to all of us.
Our government has long been committed to combatting terrorists
worldwide. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been leading our
government's approach in Africa and elsewhere to help build the capacity
of countries so they are better able to protect their populations from
the threat of terrorists. The Canadian armed forces has also played an
important role in this whole of government approach, training security
forces in west African countries.
Terrorist groups and criminal networks have recently been
gaining ground in northern Mali, posing not only a threat to the
security and stability of Mali, but also to the Sahel and wider western
African region. The terrorist presence in the north was reprehensible,
sowing fear and destruction village by village. For example, in the
historic city of Timbuktu, these extremist groups desecrated tombs,
smashed graves and holy shrines and destroyed irreplaceable monasteries
from the 13th century.
Just before Christmas, the United Nations Security
Council recognized the gravity of this situation as a threat to the
international community as a whole and passed resolution 2085.
In January the security situation in Mali deteriorated
rapidly even further as heavily armed Islamist groups began to press
south. This also had the potential to endanger Bamako, the capital of
Mali, with a population of almost two million people. At the request of
the Malian president and in line with United Nations Security Council
resolution 2085, the government of France launched a military operation
on January 11 to stop that advance and stabilize the security situation
in the country.
This operation enables the African-led international
support mission to Mali to take over the lead and help Mali recover its
territorial integrity and full sovereignty.
Currently the French-led response in support of the
Malian forces involves the participation of neighbouring African
countries from the economic community of west African states, or ECOWAS.
It also has the support of key allies and partners such as the United
States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and the
European Union.
For our part, Canada is undertaking a coordinated wall of
government response. That has always been our government's approach to
unstable areas suffering insurgent activities and will remain so. As the
Prime Minister
stated, we are committed to working diplomatically with our allies to
determine the best course of action. At the same time, Canada continues
to provide humanitarian aid and development assistance to the region,
with a particular emphasis on food security.
Our government has also clearly set out the parameters
for Canadian military contribution to this mission. Canada is prepared,
consistent with UN Security Council resolution 2085, to provide limited
and clearly defined logistical support to assist the forces that are
intervening in Mali. Our government is not and will not be considering a
direct Canadian combat role in Mali.
In fitting with these parameters and the response to an
urgent request from our French partners, our government agreed to
provide heavy lift aircraft to France for a limited period and we
provided it with lightening speed. A C-17 Globemaster was quickly
deployed on January 15, with approximately 40 military personnel for an
initial period of one week. The Minister of National Defence
was at CFB Trenton to wish the crew and personnel a safe departure. At
the future request of the government of France, Canada extended the
commitment of its C-17 Globemaster aircraft until February 15.
As we speak, members of the Canadian armed forces are
working with their French colleagues, flying essential equipment,
supplies and personnel between France and Bamako. They have already
transported over half a million pounds of cargo. Canada is making a
critical contribution. In fact, France's ambassador to Canada recently
said that logistics was something essential and really invaluable in the
present situation.
(2300)
Canada is one of only a small number of countries that
can provide this very important capability on such short notice. It is a
contribution that has allowed our French and African partners to stop
the terrorist groups from moving south and to make important gains on
the ground.
French troops are now refocusing on the north,
progressively securing key villages and towns, such as Timbuktu, and
they conquered the last stronghold of the insurgents, the town of
Kiddal.
This mission reflects the high degree of readiness of the
Royal Canadian Air Force. It has proven this ability time and time
again, proudly showing the Canadian flag and supporting operations over
Canadian territory, Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan and now over Mali, as well
as in some 15 other ongoing missions, whether at sea in the Arabian
Gulf, or on the ground, training in Afghanistan.
The Canadian Armed Forces' effort in Mali underscores the
continued importance of having an agile and versatile expeditionary
force for the future. This is why our government is committed to
investing in the modern equipment it needs.
Early on, our government was quick to recognize that the
changing and uncertain global environment required Canada's military to
have its own reliable, independent access to strategic airlift. I would
note that in the time I was deployed in Afghanistan, I was thankful that
the government provided this capacity.
As members may recall, our government went ahead and
acquired the C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, so we are not relying
anymore on the AN-24s or Russian aircraft.
Only 12 days after entering service with the Canadian
Armed Forces, Canada's first C-17 carried out its initial mission,
delivering emergency relief supplies to the people of Jamaica in the
wake of Hurricane Dean. It was called upon yet again to transport troops
and deliver supplies in Haiti's darkest hours during Operation HESTIA.
It has done yeomen service in Afghanistan, alongside other key
investments, such as the Hercules and Chinook aircraft, the light
armoured vehicles and the Leopard 2 tanks that helped save countless
Canadian lives.
Once again, we are seeing these investments pay off, to
the benefit of Canada, to the benefit of our allies and, today, to the
benefit of our efforts in Mali. We are proud that the Canadian Armed
Forces are able to make such a critical contribution.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated, we will continue to monitor the situation closely, consult with allies and update Parliament as events unfold.
However, let me emphasize that Canada's commitment to
countering the global cancer of criminal networks and terrorists is
steadfast, because it is important to the security of Canada, to the
safety of Canadians.
I know that the members of this House will agree, and I encourage them to express their support.
(2305)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, we have been talking a bit tonight about what the causes were
for the situation in Mali, an overview of a year ago with the coup, of
course, and then a perfect storm that allowed for some of the extremists
to intervene.
However, one of the things we have to consider is that we
are also dealing with environmental issues here, and I would like
comments from the member on this. We know, from people having studied
failed states and weak states, that it is because of many different
aspects. One of the concerns in the Sahel area is that there is drought,
severe drought, not just drought that has happened recently. Many have
observed this has been because of climate change.
It is one thing to look at what is happening right now
with the intervention of extremists in Mali, but it is also another
thing to understand that there is an issue around climate change, the
fact that the climate has really devastated this area and that we need
to do more to help people there adapt to climate change.
I would like to hear his thoughts about the fact that
there is the environmental aspect to this, as well as the human aspect,
and what we should be doing to ensure people can withstand and adapt to
climate change, so that they are not as vulnerable from outside
variables and, in this case, from outside extremists.
(2310)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I would like to answer my colleague's great question.
First, to be able to work on the climate, we need to have
a safe and secure environment. That means we need to get rid of the
terrorist activities. We need to establish peace in the country first,
and that is the main going on right now.
Right now, with lightning speed, the French, followed by
the African troops, re-secured and basically liberated the territory
from Islamic forces. However, another problem is now keeping that land.
In the military it is not enough to defeat enemy forces, but all the
ground has to be kept
Once a safe and secure environment is established,
Canada is there to help, and I heard tonight that a lot of funds have
been committed to Mali. They were committed before the situation
deteriorated with the Islamic forces.
Absolutely, I think that the government is monitoring the
situation. I am not a member of cabinet, but I am quite sure that
persons who are more competent than I am are doing the monitoring in
this regard.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech so late this evening, but I
would like him to comment on the inherent contradiction of the
government that has been exposed by this debate.
The government is saying that Canada has invested in Mali
in the past, that Canada has been there for decades. Now that the
country is in crisis, we are told that we do not need to do much more,
because we have done so much in the past.
Why, for example, when it is time to offer logistics to
an ally, to friends, do we offer a plane for a week, or maybe a month?
Why do we not want to invest in AFISMA and in training, and not want to
be a part of it? We did a lot in the past. That is why we are not
proposing any help for the democratic process for the restoration of
democracy. We will wait for July. Until then, we will have nothing to do
with that. That is why we are investing only $13 million when countries
that have been much less involved with Mali in the past are now helping
much more than we are.
How come we are doing so little?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I can tell the hon. member that we are investing in the country.
We are monitoring the situation and how it is evolving on the ground.
I can walk the walk and talk the talk and tell the hon.
member what is going on right now on the ground. Basically there was a
meeting with the West African chiefs of staff, who committed 5,000
troops. They committed more troops to AFISMA and to help rebuild Mali.
The situation is being monitored and we committed money for that, and we will see how the situation evolves.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, would the hon. member, my colleague, agree with me that we do
not invest for the sake of spending money but for the sake of results,
and we take heart from the fact that our allies and our African partners
are getting results.
There is something like 4,000 French troops on the
ground, and they have had success. There are 3,800 troops from ECOWAS,
most in Bamako but now moving northwards, and they have had success.
Troops mobilized within Africa are meeting the military demand, and
therefore none of our allies, who do not have troops based in Africa,
are participating with troops on the ground. We are simply following
their example.
Does the hon. member not agree that this has proven to
be, in a very short time, a wise course of action, and that our longer
term commitments to Mali, which have given institutional results in the
form of some of the best units of the Malian army and the institution
that is now serving as the headquarters for AFISMA, will be continued
over the longer term?
In the meantime, the most urgent need, which we have met
with incremental funding, is the humanitarian need. That is probably the
issue that we in Canada need to be following most closely, so long as
the military mission continues to progress in a positive direction.
(2315)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, obviously the military situation is evolving in a very positive
way. Once the situation is resolved, the aid that we have already
committed will be able to resolve the humanitarian situation that exists
in Mali today.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks and note his service
in the Canadian armed forces and his experience in Afghanistan. Perhaps
because of that experience, I wonder if he would share with the House
his view on whether Canada could, as some of my colleagues have asked,
adopt a more robust role militarily in supporting allies.
I agree entirely with his assessment of the importance of
pushing back the extremist and terrorist threat. I think he correctly
highlighted that success. I do not disagree necessarily with his view
that a direct combat role for Canadian Forces at this point is not
something the government should look at. The Prime Minister has been clear on that.
However, is there another role than providing this
airplane for five weeks? Could it be training or logistic support,
perhaps in an office in Bamako? Are there other ways that the military
could provide non-combat support other than the plane simply going
between Bamako and Paris?
The member's experience in Afghanistan would show that
this is invaluable and I wonder if he would share his thoughts on that
with the House.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, as a former military person, I think that if a request for that
were made, it would be considered by our government.
I can say that there is a lot of support being provided
in Africa at this point. On January 22, the U.S. air force deployed
French troops in Mali. Also the Germans and others are supporting the
cleanup of Malian territory from terrorists, and also from neighbouring
countries. We also need to note that January 16 was very close to the
French intervention and that it was on January 11 that there was the
terrorist attack on Amenas, north of the Malian border.
I would also like to inform the hon. member that I
participated in the emergency debate at the Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly that took place from January 21 to 23. There, I
had quite good information on what was going on in Mali.
To conclude, I think our government will consider the necessary steps as the situation evolves, on the premise that the Prime Minister outlined that we will not provide combat troops on the ground.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I will indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.
Last week we got our first glimpse of the government's
thinking on this conflict in Mali. It was instructive in a way that the
government possibly did not intend it to be. When General Vance was
asked what Canada's military goal in Mali is, he spent a lot of time
sort of figuring out what our military goal is and finally settled on
the notion that our military goal is actually to support France.
At one level, we actually do not have a military goal,
other than to support France. I guess the follow-up question would be
what is France's military goal in this region. We are left with the
notion that, if we are supporting France, we have to hope that its
military goal is the same as ours.
I would have preferred to have heard more directly from
the government. There has been some dancing around by the parliamentary
secretary and others, who are saying that the Sahel region is an area of
significant interest to our security, and international and regional
security.
Frankly, the parliamentary secretaries have been quite
articulate. It would have been useful had the government, even a couple
of weeks ago, articulated the issue of Islamicist insurrections,
Islamicist threats to the region and to the area, and articulated a plan
to us. Thus far we have heard bits and pieces of this and that, but no
overall plan of what we will actually be doing in this area.
It is in our security interest that the Islamicist threat
be contained, be degraded. I do not anticipate that it will actually
ever be defeated, but certainly it can be put in a position where its
ability to inflict harm on others is minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
If there is a caution in all of this, it is to resist the
temptation to be too ambitious. Mali is a bit of a mess, to put it
delicately. There have been coups and counter-coups, and the rather
shadowy Captain Sanogo operates on a level that is not entirely—and
probably is not in any way—accountable, transparent or in any sense
democratic.
He commands an army that is poorly trained and, frankly,
is prone to taking into its own hands some extra-judicial killings. The
Tuareg people do not recognize, at the best of times, the authority of
the Bamako government. They are a very fierce and independent Berber
group of people who have acquired, since the fall of Libya, a
significant cache of armaments, and from time to time have hooked up
with the jihadists to actually create a very formidable fighting force,
which precipitated the intervention of the French just a few weeks ago
The whole situation with respect to the Tuareg is quite
confusing. They do not recognize the Bamako authority. They make common
cause with the jihadists, but as soon they try to declare the northern
part of Mali as an independent Berber state, then the jihadists and they
part company.
One of the things that has not been discussed this
evening is the Islamicist concept of time. This is a 7th century version
of Islam, and we have a 21st century military. Our sense of time is not
their sense of time. Their individual defeat, such as what they are
experiencing currently at the hands of the French, is not important to
them, because they are doing “God's will” and when they are doing God's
will, they can never lose.
I am going to turn the balance of time over to my colleague. I look forward to a few questions from colleagues in the House.
(2320)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, our view on this side of the House is that the concept of time
for these groups should be that their time is over. That should be our
message from all sides of the House, and certainly from all capitals.
However, let us clarify the question of what kind of
mission this is. We have had some confusion about peacekeeping missions
and combat missions. There are roughly 80,000 troops on UN peacekeeping
missions at the moment. There are, what colleagues in the NDP neglect to
mention, over a hundred thousand troops still in NATO missions. Canada
has about a thousand in the most important of those missions. Does the
hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood agree that this mission is neither of those?
It is certainly not a NATO mission and given its mandate, it is certainly not a UN peacekeeping mission. It is a pseudo sui generis
combat mission led by Africans but with strong French participation,
because France has troops based in Africa. That formula has worked so
far, and so long as it continues to work, we in Canada should not be
questioning it.
(2325)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, of course this is not a peacekeeping mission. There is no peace
to be kept, so that is a non-starter as a question. The question does
exhibit a certain confusion on the part of the government though,
because the government's position at this point in the evening is that
we are actually supporting the French in their mission. Whatever the
French mission is, that is our mission.
The government is not supporting the UN mandated mission,
which is quite a robust mission. Hence, the contradiction in the
government's position that it is supporting the French but, for whatever
reason, not the UN. The consequence of that is that when the French
leave, when they decide their mission is over, our mission is over.
Therefore, the African troops are left on their own without any support
from Canada.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I have been in this take note debate since it began many hours
ago, trying to discern if we actually have very much difference between
all of us here in the House of Commons. We are debating a situation in
Mali, in which Canada is currently playing a minimal role with an
aircraft support plane to deliver goods. We are talking about a more
humanitarian mission going forward in the future. I think members on all
sides of the House might be prepared to consider a United Nations
peacekeeping mission, if there were one.
We have been at great pains to try to find fault with
each other and partisan difference. However, I think this is one of
those rare discussions where we are debating something where the
situation is fluid. We want to make sure that Canada does not get
engaged in Mali in a way that deters from our fundamental values.
I would like to ask my friend, because I thought his
comments about the nature of Islamists was fascinating, if he thinks on
this one occasion in the House we might have more in common than in
difference?
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I would dearly love to say yes to my hon. colleague. My problem
is that the government has yet to state its goal, tell us what the plan
is and recognize that whatever the plan is it has to involve AFISMA.
Also, real money has to be put behind AFISMA. If we do not do that, we
are almost setting it up as a failure.
As I said to my colleague, I would love to be agreeable
and have some direct conversation with my colleagues as to why the
government to this point has not supported AFISMA, but it has not and
that is the critical question here.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am a bit disappointed with the way this so-called take note
debate is going. During a take note debate, we are supposed to explore
possible avenues and measures. We certainly need to determine our
objectives.
The government side mainly spoke about the historical
background of the situation. They talked about things that happened far
in the past or in more recent weeks, but they spoke very little about
the future. I get the impression that the government is using this
debate to see what the opposition parties want. It is unfortunate
because, if we want to have an honest take note debate, the government
has to put forward some options and listen to the opposition parties'
reactions. That is not exactly what is happening, and that bothers me.
It is important to put this into context. I am going to share with the House what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. He was in Washington not too long ago, on January 28. A journalist asked him:
[English]| Turning to the crisis in North and West Africa, do you believe that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s expanding control of northern Mali presents a threat to Canada and Canadian interests? |
Here is what the minister responded:
[English]| I think the great struggle of our generation is the struggle against radical extremists and international terrorists wherever they are in the world. That’s not an issue exclusively about Mali’s neighbourhood. It’s an issue for all humanity. |
I totally agree with the minister on that. It is indeed
one of the great struggles of our time and it is a struggle, as the
member for Toronto Centre said, in a diminishing world where everything is linked.
If we indeed believe that we have to counter the
terrorist threat when it manifests itself by taking hold of two-thirds
of a country in West Africa, where the series of neighbours, Niger,
Burkina Faso and Mauritania, have borders that are very porous and are a
stone's throw from Europe, one would have to wonder, if indeed that is
the philosophy of the government, why it is not acting more. It may
translate to boots on the ground, but it may not have to. However, it
certainly has to translate to help in the funds, which have not
occurred, to fight this situation. It can translate into training, which
has been talked about both by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It can translate into other means and so forth. However, I am a little
worried about this disconnect between the philosophy that animates the
government, and on the other hand, the seeming timidity in responding to
a real threat.
There are three things I want to bring up very quickly,
which I hope the government would take note of and explore. First, it
seems that the major cities have been cleared, but there is a vast
territory to look into now. There are 3,000 forces from ECOWAS.
[Translation]
ECOWAS will provide 3,000 soldiers and Mali itself will
provide 6,000, which represents an average-sized deployment over such a
vast territory. So they will need help.
Does Canada, through ECOWAS and the African Union, plan
on doing something to stabilize the situation in Mali and maybe even
continue to counter the terrorist forces?
And what will we specifically do to help with the
upcoming election, which seems to be a very important reason for the
government to resume negotiations with or reinstate direct assistance to
the Malian government? Will we unfreeze some of this money to help run a
real election? Some things could be done from Canada. Elections Canada,
New Brunswick, Élections Québec and Ontario all have French-language
capabilities. They may be interested in participating.
Will there be an observation mission and will we
participate if there is another one organized by an organization like La
Francophonie, for example? These are things to explore. Perhaps the
minister will come speak to us later. I think that is important.
We have not heard this evening about the Malian diaspora
here, in Canada, and elsewhere in the world. There are hundreds of
thousands of refugees—390,000, I heard.
Of that number, some have families here in Canada. We
could have been talking about family reunification or speeding up the
immigration and refugee process to help the diaspora and the people of
Mali. There has been no talk about that. The government has not proposed
anything to that effect, where in other circumstances, it wanted to
help by speeding up the process, but maybe not in Africa.
We have not heard the government talk about that and I would like it to say a few words about that.
(2330)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he was a
little pressed for time, since he had only five minutes left. I would
like to give him an opportunity to speak more about the role Canada can
play in supporting the return to democracy to Mali.
It is a failure, a difficult situation. The government
mentioned a road map to democracy a number of times. I think everyone
agrees that the status quo cannot last and that Mali needs a stable,
open and transparent democracy again, like the one that Canada bragged
about helping to establish in the past. It was obviously more fragile
than we thought.
Does my colleague have any specific ideas? He mentioned
Elections Canada and other provinces. But what can Canada do to steer
the Malian government back towards a real democracy? What does he see
Canada's role to be in this?
(2335)
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this issue.
If the government is really saying that it wants to work
with a democratic government and that there is a road map for an
election in July, there are many things that the Government of Canada,
NGOs and Canadian government agencies can do to ensure that democracy is
restored in Mali and Bamako.
I mentioned observers earlier. Canada has taken part in
such an exercise before by sending nearly 500 observers to Europe to
observe the election in Ukraine.
If Canada really wanted to express its desire to see
democracy restored in Mali, could it dispatch a rather sizable
observation mission? Could it send police officers with such a mission?
Of course, we can expect that the election will not go smoothly in
certain parts of Mali, especially given the terrorist groups who do not
support democracy.
These are two simple ideas that the government must
consider. It must come back to Parliament and tell us what direction it
wants to take. It could even take the opportunity next week at the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to
indicate what it intends to do.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I listened intently to my friend when he answered the question
about what we could possibly do and he said “lots of things”. We could
actually do lots of things. NGOs could do lots of things. The government
could do lots of things. When he finally arrived at specifying one
thing, he specified an election observation mission, and that is
interesting. The country he was referring to was Ukraine, which is just a
tiny bit different than Mali. There are not a lot of terrorists running
around in Ukraine today. I am not sure how we would send 500 Canadians
to Mali and protect them. We would probably have to send a lot of troops
there to protect the Canadian observation mission to observe that
election.
Some form of international observation mission I am sure
will be suggested and Canada will certainly consider it when that is
suggested by the appropriate international organization. I do not think
sending 500 Canadian civilians with a lot of Canadian soldiers to
protect them from the al-Qaeda terrorists makes a lot of sense right
now.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am not sure if there was a mistake in the translation, but I
did not talk about soldiers. I talked about police forces. This has
often been done in many countries to ensure a minimal level of
protection. I did not say it was absolutely necessary to send 500. I was
giving an example of what has been done elsewhere. It could be a
different number.
If we invited members of the diaspora, people who have
become Canadian citizens and who understand how a democracy works, a
large number of them would probably be willing to return to their
country of origin to take part in observation missions, for instance.
Why is the parliamentary secretary being so negative?
What a wet blanket. We are having a take note debate in order to explore
ideas. We are proposing solutions and he reacts negatively to them,
saying that maybe we should be more minimalist.
His Minister of Foreign Affairs
has said that humanity's greatest challenge is terrorism. In the
current situation in Mali, terrorists have practically taken control of
the entire country. Yet he tells us not to overreact, not to stir things
up too much. I find that attitude quite disappointing.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
take note debate on this important topic as we approach the midnight
hour. I want to thank my colleagues across the House of Commons for
participating in the discussion this evening.
As the House knows, events in Mali are unfolding quickly,
and the Government of Canada is gravely concerned about the growing
humanitarian crisis, not just in Mali but in the wider Sahel region. I
welcome the opportunity to shed light on Canada's current role in
providing assistance to Mali and in the Sahel.
Our hearts go out to the people of Mali. For nearly two
decades, supported by a government committed to democracy, Malians have
persevered against terrible odds. They have worked hard to reduce
hunger, malnutrition, corruption and illiteracy, and Canada has been
proud to support all of their efforts in this regard.
Our government developed a long-term program that
supported Mali's own strategy for reducing poverty. Within that
framework, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, focused
on three priorities: the needs of children and youth, including the
health of newborns and their mothers; food security; and governance. Our
investments helped to generate impressive results, especially in the
areas of health and education.
For example, between 2006 and 2010, the rate of prenatal
consultation increased from 75% to 79%. Between 2007 and 2010, the
percentage of live births attended by skilled health personnel jumped
from 41% to 43%. More recently, in 2010, primary students received more
than 1.2 million new textbooks, which allowed Mali to meet its target
ratio of two textbooks per student. That will have a significant impact
on the quality of their education.
In these troubled times, Canada remains a steadfast partner in Mali and the wider region in West Africa.
Drought and poor harvest over the last two years,
combined with conflict in the north, has jeopardized the access of some
two million people in Mali to nutritious food. It has put at risk the
education of countless children and youth and has forced more than
385,000 people to flee their homes in search of sanctuary, either within
Mali or in neighbouring countries. For that reason, Canada continues to
provide humanitarian assistance, and in a very strong way.
Our support is helping to distribute hygiene kits to
prevent the spread of illness and disease. It is feeding children
suffering from hunger and malnutrition. It is providing blankets and
shelter to families who have left everything behind. It is enabling
families to earn money so that they can meet their basic needs with
dignity.
Our government will continue to respond to the evolving
humanitarian needs of the Malian people. Through our partners, such as
the international Red Cross movement, the UN World Food Programme and
Canadian NGOs, our support is reaching people desperately in need, both
in Mali and in affected countries.
Canada's support does not end at Mali's borders. Canada
has a long history of assisting our friends in Africa. In fact, last
year, nearly half of CIDA's assistance focused on sub-Saharan Africa. In
2011-2012, Africa received 62% of our total food security program, 60%
of our agricultural support and 63% of our health support. These are
significant numbers.
Canada is a leader in food security. We are the first G8
country to deliver on its L'Aquila food security commitment. Our
government has untied food assistance.
(2340)
As recently as 2007, over half of Canadian food
assistance to developing countries had to be purchased in Canada. Tied
aid is not effective and it is not efficient.
We are focusing on achieving results for taxpayer
investments. Tied aid undermines the ability of developing nations to
produce or buy goods for themselves and delays the assistance from
reaching the people who so desperately need it.
That is why our Conservative government untied all food
aid in 2008 and set 2012-13 as the deadline for fully untying the goods
and services delivered through Canadian aid programs. Through our
support, 7.8 million chronically food insecure people have been given
food in Ethiopia, for example. Over 1.3 million people in Mali have been
given emergency food and nutrition assistance. These are results.
We work with African countries both bilaterally and
regionally. At the heart of Canada's approach is our support for
African-led solutions to development challenges and regional problems.
We support major global and multilateral organizations that work in
Africa, notably the African Union, the African Development Bank, the UN
World Food Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund and the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
With our assistance, African countries have made
significant progress on a number of fronts in recent years. We know that
issues like drought, disease and conflict do not respect national
borders. That is why we are taking a regional approach with regard to
our assistance in Mali.
Last February, for example, Canada answered an emergency
appeal from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This
helped to provide essential items, such as blankets, kitchen sets,
shelter and sanitary supplies to Malians who had fled to Niger, Burkina
Faso and Mauritania. In that same month Canada provided support to the
International Red Cross to deliver household items and hygiene kits as
well as food to some 600,000 people, including populations in the north
of Mali where the needs were greatest and the risks were highest.
We took further steps this past summer. In August Canada
made a contribution to the World Food Programme. This helped to provide
food and nutrition assistance to Malian refugees in Niger, Mauritania
and Burkina Faso.
Members know that we stood shoulder to shoulder with our
friends in the Sahel region, by creating the Sahel crisis matching fund
in response to an escalating food security and nutrition crisis in the
region. As part of the matching fund initiative, CIDA allocated funds
for the provision of emergency food in the region.
Canada has been a strong friend to the people of Mali and
the Sahel region and we continue to respond to the needs of the most
vulnerable, particularly women and children.
Just last week at the donors' pledging conference in Ethiopia, the Minister of International Cooperation announced additional assistance for a number of initiatives aimed at addressing pressing humanitarian needs.
We will not abandon Mali. We have collaborated with
committed partners in the country for a long time. We are drawing on
this expertise now to support work on the front lines. We will continue
to stand with the people of Mali in their time of need.
(2345)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, my colleague talked about textbooks being given to Mali in order
for school children to have opportunities. It is very personal for me
because for the last 10 years my family has supported a little girl in
Mali through World Vision. Her name is Tolatta Togo. Tolatta has the
opportunity to go to school.
Could my colleague comment on how Canada's contribution will help girls like Tolatta to get an education?
(2350)
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, education is a key focus of our development efforts, not only in
Mali but across the African continent. Supporting education is critical
to helping to build a strong society, to helping to give children and
youth the tools they need to succeed in their respective societies. This
is just one example where Canada, through our international development
agency, CIDA, is having a direct positive impact on the people of Mali,
particularly on its children in this case.
[Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and all members for participating in this debate.
I deplore many things, especially the fact that no
minister has spoken since we began this debate. I cannot say whether or
not the ministers were present, as that would be unparliamentary.
However, I can say that they did not participate. That says a lot about
the government's minimalist approach: do as little as possible and
claim, like many others have, that there is no need to do much more.
That has been illustrated throughout this debate at every angle.
Will the member undertake to have his government and his
ministers ensure that Canada upholds its reputation and gives Mali much
more help than is currently being provided? Why has the Minister for La
Francophonie not said a word in this debate, as though it was not
important for Canada to be a member of la Francophonie?
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I certainly reject the premise of the question. Our Prime Minister
has shown significant leadership with respect to Africa. The child and
maternal health initiative is the pride of all Canadians. It is a
signature Canadian initiative that is making an incredible mark on the
world, saving the lives of women and children primarily in the continent
of Africa.
In terms of the leadership of our Minister of International Cooperation,
a number of months ago we established a matching fund so that Canadians
who donated to the Sahel crisis would have their donations matched.
More recently, our minister was in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia,
where he pledged additional Canadian support for humanitarian efforts
in Mali. That is leadership.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Speaker, earlier this evening we heard a lot from the opposition about
how the Canadian government has somehow abandoned Africa, and yet
statistics show that since the time that the Liberal member who just
asked the question was a minister in the Canadian government, the
Government of Canada has doubled its assistance to Africa. Last year
nearly half of all CIDA's assistance was focused on sub-Saharan Africa.
In 2011-12, Africa received 62% of the agency's total food security
programming, 60% of its agricultural support and 63% of its health
support.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those
statistics and say why he thinks the opposition is confused about the
Canadian government's commitment to Africa.
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, that is a question that I am pleased to have the opportunity to
answer and one that is really a patently unfair notion with respect to
our government.
I am the vice-chair of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary
Association, and I know a bit about our government's commitment to
Africa. We were the first G8 country to fulfill our commitment to double
aid to Africa. That is leadership.
I mentioned earlier the Prime Minister's
initiative on child and maternal health, which benefits primarily women
and children in Africa. We have untied food aid, which is a
particularly significant initiative.
Let me briefly explain one important initiative that
pertains to my own riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, to which our government
provided strong support. Through the Perimeter Institute for
Theoretical Physics, the next Einstein initiative has the goal of
finding the next Einstein in Africa.
Supporting Africans, helping Africans find the solutions they need to their own challenges, that is leadership.
(2355) [Translation]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, frankly, if France had not intervened in Mali, al-Qaeda would
have control of a west African country, with all the risks that
represents. Fortunately, the French intervened.
Instead of always trying to minimize Canada's role, it would be nice if the Prime Minister
of Canada would say that Canada will be there to offer the logistical
support required, without necessarily sending in troops, since the
French are capable are freeing these towns on their own. Helping does
not just involve sending in a plane for a week and then being forced to
lend it for a few more weeks. The Prime Minister should have said that
Canada would intervene.
The government was so proud to say that we would play a
role in Afghanistan and so proud of providing $350 million in assistance
to Libya. That is what the intervention in Libya cost. There is talk of
offering Mali a minimum of $13 million. The Conservatives are always
doing the minimum. I do not understand why the government changed in
this regard. It is true: the government does the minimum. It does as
little as possible.
In my opinion, the government needs to wake up and take
strong action when it comes to democracy, humanitarian aid, logistic
support and the training of African troops. That is what we should be
doing.
[English]
[Table of Contents]
Mr.
Chair, I am somewhat surprised by the question. I know my hon.
colleague has been here for this evening's discussion and debate, but it
seems as if perhaps he did not listen.
Our government has made significant investments in the
country of Mali. We have been involved in international development
efforts in Mali since 1962. In 2010-11 we contributed over $110 million.
Our commitment remains very strong.
We want to see the return to democracy in Mali and we
support those efforts. The French effort, the military effort, is
unfolding as we speak and it is progressing well. We need to let that
situation continue to unfold. It is going in the right direction. We
look forward to a full return to democracy, respect for human rights and
the rule of law in the country of Mali.
[Table of Contents]
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this topic in the waning hours of the day and this debate.
I am deeply concerned about the conflict in Mali and the
resulting instability in the region. I am also concerned about what
Canada's role should be if and when this conflict escalates.
The message the government has been sending on Mali, and
on Africa in general, has been rather contradictory. Unfortunately, it
is consistent with the expressed mantra of the government to reduce
Canada's presence on the African continent, thereby eroding Canada's
effectiveness, and as a result, Canada's esteem and validity as a global
actor, through disengagement.
Disengagement means less of an understanding of the
issues that affect countries individually, be it on the African
continent or in any other country around the world. Disengagement leaves
us in a world of ignorance. This should be cause enough for concern,
but disengagement also is noticed.
There may be little concern for Canada's international
reputation, as is witnessed by our withdrawal from international climate
treaties, our alienation of our traditional partners, and in most
recent months, the rather puzzling approach to international
development. The government may not concern itself with our
international reputation, but Canadians do, and they do notice.
Canadians understand that we live among one another within a global
community.
On diplomacy, our country is stronger when it works with
long-standing partners and allies and respects and encourages a dialogue
with potential future partners.
On international development, we must work hard to
recapture the role we once held as a global leader in international
development, which has been lost through the myopic ideology of cost
first and common sense later, an ideology that undermines the ability of
our diplomats and our aid workers to do their jobs.
The closing of embassies on the African continent has
left gaping holes in Canada's international identity, and as important,
our ability to properly monitor ongoing security issues as well as human
rights abuses, which are both clearly at play in Mali today.
We intervened in Libya alongside our allies but failed to
anticipate the stream of mercenaries flowing out of Libya to their home
countries, including northern Mali, accompanied by very high-powered
weapons that are being used against others today.
As I only have three minutes, and I have only been able
to begin our discussion, I will leave it at that point. Maybe at a
future date we can continue this very important discussion on Mali.
(2400)
[Table of Contents]
It being 12:01 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.
* * *
(Government Business No. 16 reported)
[Table of Contents]
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:01 a.m.)
No comments:
Post a Comment