EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 10, 1996

.0916

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to order.

It is my pleasure today to welcome four members of PEN Canada, who will be speaking to us about the situation of writers in prison and I believe about several specific circumstances and countries.

I'll be chairing the meeting today. Our regular chair, Mr. Graham, is in Singapore, along with a member of the Reform Party and a member of the Bloc, at the WTO meeting. This is not a winter holiday. Other members will be coming in.

We also have a vote, I believe, at 10:30 a.m., but we have some time that has become available, and I think we'll be able to go beyond 10 o'clock should the questions and the discussions merit that additional time.

I'd like to introduce the persons representing PEN Canada: the national president, Ron Graham; the executive director, Isobel Harry; and the chair of the Writers in Prison Committee, Charlotte Gray. From PEN Quebec, we have Roger Paul Gilbert.

I'll turn to you, Mr. Graham, to make the initial presentation.

Mr. Ron Graham (National President, PEN Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me give you a very quick summary of PEN Canada and what we do. Basically, PEN Canada is an organization of writers, editors, translators, publishers, and screen writers who have come together informally on a volunteer basis to help advance the issue of freedom of expression, both in Canada and around the world, in particular to help fellow colleagues - writers - who are persecuted or in prison somewhere in the world.

There are roughly 600 members of PEN Canada. Our headquarters is in Toronto. We look at two different areas. We have a certain concern for domestic issues like censorship, customs seizures, or libel reform, but the bulk of our work is focused internationally. We have 30 honorary members, as we call them, who are writers in prison or in trouble somewhere in the world in 17 different countries. We basically lobby governments and petition governments, both Canadian governments and foreign governments. We have postcard campaigns. We work through the United Nations at the human rights convention in Geneva. We disseminate publicity and information to try to get those writers out of trouble or out of prison, at the same time advancing the whole issue of freedom of expression as a human right.

Two of our most prominent cases are those of Salman Rushdie, who is one of our honorary members - we still follow his case quite closely - and Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Nigerian writer who was killed last year at the time of the Commonwealth summit. He was one of our honorary members and remained a distinguished honorary member because of the power of his case. He was a writer who was murdered for the peaceful expressions of his views.

PEN Canada and le centre québécois are affiliated with International PEN, which is just celebrating its 75th anniversary. It was founded in 1921 in London as a group of writers dedicated to freedom of expression and helping fellow writers. There's a charter that was written in 1921 to state our objectives, which were basically the propagation of freedom of expression around the world. It's based in London. Both English and French are its official languages. It now has 124 centres in90 countries around the world, with some 12,000 members, most of whom are writers, publishers, poets, editors, etc. It looks after 900 cases on its case list around the world, works closely with the United Nations - with UNESCO - and meets annually in congresses to pass resolutions to lobby governments to help our issues.

.0920

As I say, PEN Canada is one of those 124 members. We're autonomous within International PEN, but we all work collectively. PEN Canada was founded in Montreal as a bilingual centre in 1926 - one of the first member centres in the world. In 1982 it split into two. The anglophone writers became headquartered at PEN Canada in Toronto.

[Translation]

The Centre québécois, that helps francophone writers, stayed in Montreal. We draft resolutions, lobby, and intervene on behalf of prisoners, in China, Turkey and other countries.

Today we invited Mr. Roger Gilbert, one of the two vice- presidents of the Centre québécois, to say a few words on the Centre québécois and its goals.

Mr. Roger Paul Gilbert (Vice-President, Centre québécois, PEN International): I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Graham's statements about the approach and vocation of PEN centres throughout the world.

Our association in Quebec has between 100 and 200 members. On the whole, we share the same goals. We try to defend writers who have been unjustly imprisoned for their convictions; this is the key sentence to remember. It is the goal that we want to advocate with various governments as well as the governments responsible for these violations, and the Canadian government, that we hope will support freedom of expression whether that be in international fora or bilaterally with the governments concerned.

The PEN movement holds annual conventions. The last one took place in Guadalajara, Mexico, from the 7th to the 13th of November last. Later I would like to tell you about some of the resolutions we passed, including one that could be important we think, for the Francophonie. I will talk about that later if you're interested.

Another of the PEN clubs' concerns is the notion of language rights charters. A charter was presented at a meeting in Barcelona in September. It was the subject of negotiations between various members of a committee representing PEN groups throughout the world. Naturally, Canadians were represented on that committee including a Québécois who provided a Canadian perspective on language rights.

This charter, which is still at the draft stage, was tabled with UNESCO. We hope that it will be voted on and that it will be adopted by UNESCO and we also hope that the Canadian government will support it.

Those are the highlights of our goals. I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

Mr. Graham: I would just like to conclude, Mr. English. I would like to make concrete what we do and what we're trying to do.

.0925

We could talk abstractly about freedom of expression around the world or here in Canada, but what we focus on primarily in our work are specific cases of individual writers who, for the peaceful expression of peaceful views, have been imprisoned by their governments or otherwise persecuted.

As I told you, at the moment we have 30 cases in 17 countries. We've chosen just to talk about three examples of what we do so we can try to work together to see how best we could work and how you could work to not only help them but elevate the whole issue of freedom of expression.

A prisoner is in jail in Cuba. Cecilio Sambra Haber - a poet, a journalist, a screen writer - was sentenced in 1992 to 10 years in prison under the charge of ``rebellion by peaceful means''. Basically he was handing out anti-Castro pamphlets during an electoral campaign there. Even though he was a prize-winning poet, a short story writer and a children's author, he was arrested and sent to 10 years in prison in Santiago, where he was held until May 1995. He went on a hunger strike then because of the terrible conditions in that prison. He suffered a heart attack, was sent to another prison and is now back in prison in Santiago since January 1996.

We've been working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with writers' groups, with business groups, with any contact we can make to get a message to the Government of Cuba that we would like this person released from jail and that it's outrageous that he was charged in the first place.

Simultaneously, in Vietnam today, as we're speaking, a writer, Nguyen Van Thuan - a poet, a biographer, a political theorist - has been imprisoned since 1990. Again, even though he was a writer, a teacher and a member of the United Buddhist Church, basically he was imprisoned for his membership in a small group called Freedom Forum, which was a discussion group advocating human rights in Vietnam. He was arrested in 1990 and sent to a labour prison. Since then he suffered a stroke and was hospitalized, and yet even with the terrible condition he's in, was sent back to labour camp in the winter of this year. We want him released.

My colleague talked about the Francophonie. We recognize that next year, in November 1997, the Francophone Summit will be held in Vietnam. We're trying to find ways to get messages to the Government of Vietnam that this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

The third example I want to mention is the case of Ma Thida in Burma, or Myanmar. I'm sure many of you are familiar with the situation in Myanmar, particularly the case of Ang San Suu Kyi. She's also one of our honorary members and has been ever since she was put under house arrest in 1989 by the authorities in Rangoon for basically initiating a democratic movement in Myanmar.

One of her colleagues was a young doctor, Ma Thida, who was both an activist in the democracy movement and a doctor working for free in poor villages. She began writing short stories about her work there and the stories she'd picked up as a doctor. She was also arrested in 1993, just before her 27th birthday, and given a 20-year sentence for contact with illegal organizations and endangering the public peace. Since her imprisonment she's also been held in solitary confinement and has suffered health problems. We're trying to work for her release.

We could talk about many more, if you're interested, in the question and answer period. There are other works in China; in Turkey, a major offender of human rights; in Africa, where Nigeria continues to be a serious situation; and so on. I wanted to talk about the specifics of those three cases to give you an example of how focused we are, what we're trying to do and how that specific focus is related to our broader issue of defending human freedom of expression.

We're here today basically to tell you about our work and to ask for your help. In the next half-hour we want to find areas where we could do a better job in achieving our goals and where we might be able to help you. As you travel to other countries, can we supply you information from our bank, and how do we set up links to do that? Is your work with the Inter-Parliamentary Union something we can help mobilize?

.0930

Your work in your caucus or with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, how can we do a better job? You go to cocktail parties with ambassadors here in Ottawa. Can you bring informally some of these cases to their attention to show them you're aware of them?

We deal very closely with the United Nations and the special rapporteur for human rights. How can we help you in your work with the United Nations and how can you help us in our work with the United Nations? For example, the special rapporteur on human rights has been denied entry into Cuba, and we would like to have that changed. How can you help us get that and how can we help you?

So that's basically what we're trying to do today and that's what we're hoping to discuss in the next half hour.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Is there anyone else who would like to add any comments in this area? Ms Harry or Ms Gray? No? If that's the case, we can go directly to the questions. I have several who want to ask questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré, please.

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): First, I would like to say that I'm very interested in the presentation that you gave us this morning. In fact, today is the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps it is not just by coincidence that you have come on that same day. I'm sure there is an important connection to be made. It is rather sad to see that 50 years after this famous Declaration, many countries still maintain conditions that are absolutely contradictory to the Declaration of Human Rights.

It seems to me that your activities resemble, up to a point, those of Amnesty International. What is your relationship with Amnesty International and how are your activities different?

I was surprised that you did not mention Algeria at all. Could you tell us a little bit about that?

Furthermore, we live in a time where globalization is being celebrated, where the idea of international trade as a means of solving world problems is being promoted. Do you have any links with international organizations involved in trade, the WTO, for example? Is that not a means that you as well as other human rights advocates could use to influence countries where these violations exist?

I would like you to also tell us a little bit about Canada's foreign policy, which I think has focussed much more on trade relations and somewhat set aside human rights.

[English]

Mr. Graham: Perhaps I could begin on your first question,

[Translation]

then Mr. Gilbert can answer the question about Algeria as well as other questions.

[English]

Basically, we work in any way we can to get these prisoners out. For example, PEN Canada has always had a very good relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the officials of it. Many in the department have a human rights depth.

Basically, because we're focused on individuals, we try to take a look at how many attacks we can make on the same front in order to get these individuals out of jail or out of trouble. Traditionally, historically, since we were founded in Toronto in 1982, we've had very good relations with the department officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

.0935

Many of our embassies now have human rights officers. They have people in desks in Ottawa who are following the countries that we also follow. They're also picking up the information from the international agencies like Amnesty International or the United Nations, which we also have. What we try to do there is an exchange of information where we get some information out of a country at a grassroots level, and we pass it on to officials in Ottawa to say this is our latest information. They pass information back and forth. We often work together in our relationship with Ottawa, usually quite satisfactorily.

At the same time, we open up new venues. You talked, for example, about commercial agencies and commercial organizations. It's a relatively new field for us to do because we are organized to deal with governments, but we recognize that now in many cases a commercial enterprise or commercial organizations may have more influence in effect in particular countries. So we're beginning a process of educating, enlightening, and working with them on the situation to see whether formally or informally they could also bring some pressure to bear in order to release our prisoners.

Basically we're working on many different fronts at the same time, and we have many failures. The cases of Turkey or of China, for example, or of Vietnam, Burma or Nigeria, are intractable cases where it's not easy to get any response. Years go by with no response. But every now and then we have a win because of a coordinated effort.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert will now speak specifically about Algeria.

Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Paré, I must tell that I am a former official from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I therefore have a little experience with reality when it comes to international law and the ability of a government to intervene in human rights affairs. Along with you I also regret how little progress humanity has made in this area.

However, one has always have to be optimistic and hope for progress. Progress can happen through multilateral pressure, through multilateral organizations such as the Human Rights Commission, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the Organization of American States and its African counterpart, etc. As well as bilaterally through dialogue and government to government exchanges.

I would like to point out the contribution that interparliamentary friendship groups have made in various countries. Your Parliament has several friendship groups. These are all natural and desirable ways of raising this type of problem. How should it be raised? I am sure that you have experience in this type of exchange and you remind governments of democratic principles and their obligation to take on their responsibilities.

Let us talk about Algeria, as you raised this issue. I would like to point out that at the Guadalajara Conference, the 120 PEN clubs from around the world voted on a series of resolutions. Of course, there was a resolution on Algeria. I think that your rapporteur has already provided a copy of this. There were also two other resolutions that I would like to mention: one on the Dominican Republic and the other on the Francophonie.

The purpose of these resolutions is to provide an incentive. They are not to act as a sanction for the countries or organs they are meant for. We hope that their moral strength will have some influence on governments behaviour.

.0940

I would point out that we work with Amnesty International, that provides a source of information that PEN can use. Twice a year, the PEN centre in London also draws up a list of all prisoners of conscience on trial, unjustly imprisoned, or that PEN can help, for many reasons. We take on a very limited number of cases, as there are thousands, and try to help them.

You will note that the resolution on Algeria is particularly harmless in many respects. I myself worked in Algiers at the peak of the crisis in 1988. Obviously one has to assume that governments will take responsibility for order and the respect of human rights; that is essential in democracy. The more we demand this type of behaviour internationally, the more we can hope to succeed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. English): Thank you.

Mr. Gilbert: Allow me to say a couple of words about the Francophonie.

In Guadalajara, we voted on a Francophonie resolution. You have a copy before you. Once again, you may have the impression that these are rather innocuous texts, but the underlying thinking about these regimes is much stronger: one wonders if, given their behaviour and deplorable situations, these countries are able to form a government. The situation is catastrophic, but we also feel that governments are on the right track when they intervene, provide humanitarian assistance and, if need be, send peacekeeping forces. This is the right path for governments to take.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I have four other speakers. Mr. Assadourian, would you like to speak?

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Yes, thank you.

First of all, I would like to comment on the work you do. It's very close to my heart and very dear, I'm sure, to most members here. That's what we are here for.

I have a few quick questions. For example, for Angola you mentioned only one prisoner, or one writer. Is that all there is in Angola, or have you only adopted one?

Mr. Graham: We only adopted one.

Mr. Assadourian: So there could be more than one.

Mr. Graham: Very much so.

Mr. Assadourian: Other chapters may have....

Ms Charlotte Gray (Chair, Writers in Prison Committee, PEN Canada): The book that Mr. Gilbert has lists all the imprisoned writers all over the world who PEN is tracking. Altogether there are 900 cases, but each centre adopts however many cases it can manage to track with the resources of the centre, which is why we have 30. PEN Canada is one of the largest centres in the world and we look after 30. What that involves is each of the prisoners we've adopted has what's known as the minder, which is a Canadian writer who tracks that prisoner and the prisoner's circumstances, writes to the Canadian government, and writes to the government of the country in which the writer is imprisoned asking for updates on his circumstances, making representations on his behalf. We have one in Angola, but I don't know -

Mr. Graham: There are four in this book.

Ms Gray: There are four altogether.

Mr. Assadourian: You generally have four -

Mr. Graham: There are four in this, and even that is not the -

Mr. Assadourian: How do you pick a prisoner? How do you pick a writer?

Ms Gray: Many of them, of course, unhappily are very intractable, so we've slowly built up the 30 prisoners we look after. But what we try to do is look at countries where we feel Canada might have some influence, or where we feel there should be a concentrated effort by as many PEN centres as possible to alert the host country to the fact that we're really concerned about human rights violations there and violations of freedom of expression. It's a question of our resources and where we can have the most impact.

Mr. Assadourian: You mentioned Amnesty International. What kind of relationship do you have with them internationally? Can you elaborate on that? That's one question.

.0945

This is the other question I have. Last month we went to the Scandinavian countries. The delegation was introduced to a prisoner called Nikitin. He's a writer who wrote a book about nuclear waste in the North Sea area. I'm sure that in the former U.S.S.R., the C.I.S. countries, there are now lots of prisoners. Some journalists are shot dead on the street. How come we never adopt any of them? I think Russia is one area in which we can have some say, but there was no presentation on it. Can you elaborate more?

I met Turkish prisoners. Last month I also met the Kurdish delegation here. They are quite a bit concerned about the situation.

I'll also say that here in Ottawa - you mentioned lots of ambassadors - ambassadors usually give their receptions, or what have you, on their national day. I was at the Vietnamese reception last month. If I had known about this prisoner, I could have raised the issue. I will raise other issues with them.

Can you let us know maybe every time there is a national day in Ottawa? I guarantee you 100% that every embassy celebrates that. Can you can send us a brief? They usually invite the foreign affairs committee. When we go to this embassy for a reception that's coming up on this day, the national day, we could raise a point. So we could be prepared and make the point on your behalf. As I said at the beginning, it's very dear and close to my heart and to those of many members.

Mr. Graham: Isobel could talk, if you want, about Amnesty in Russia. She's our policy director. She works most closely on just these issues that you talked about.

Ms Isobel Harry (Executive Director, PEN Canada): We have worked on many issues closely with Amnesty. In fact we have something that is called the Rapid Action Network, which is modelled on the Amnesty International method of writing letters, lobbying governments and so on.

Sometimes we have become involved in an Amnesty case. A couple of years ago, for example, we did some lobbying on behalf of a Chilean woman prisoner who was the last female imprisoned under the Pinochet regime. Together with Amnesty, we were able to secure her release. She subsequently came to Canada on a minister's permit and so on.

Another time we worked with Amnesty was on the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa. We came to Ottawa and spoke with the Nigerian high commissioner, who was still here at that time. We worked with other human rights groups as well, depending on the circumstances.

We certainly use Amnesty's research facilities very often. We belong to a group called the Network on International Human Rights, which is based here in Ottawa. Through them, we come to the consultations each winter with the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example.

So we are very closely linked with many human rights groups. We'll work with them specifically depending on the circumstance, even environmental groups in the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa, for example.

Both Amnesty International and International PEN have a standing at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. So every year, we make official representations to the CHR. Last year I was able to attend and present a couple of the oral submissions with International PEN. There are many similarities, and we do work together.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert: In answer to Mr. Paré's question about Algeria, we recently helped a correspondent from Radio Alger who had been trying to obtain refugee status for quite some time. It came to the attention of PEN representatives in Montreal because she had relatives there. It's often in this way that we hear about cases. We finally convinced the Canadian immigration authorities to interview this person in Rabat. This victim had to obtain a visa in order to leave Algeria and go to a third country for this interview, which just occurred.

.0950

The immigration officer noted that this was an obvious case of persecution and consequently granted her refugee status so that she can come to Canada. I will not mention any names because this is still a sensitive issue.

[English]

Mr. Graham: I would just add two quick answers also.

On Russia, we are familiar with the case of Nikitin. We've been approached recently by International PEN to see how we could help him. I'm not sure we have the facilities at the moment to make him a full, honorary member and take on this case fully, but we are trying to find.... In fact, just this morning, we were talking about how we could help that case. We work with the Nordic PEN centres. We're very involved in that case.

There's also a new PEN centre in Moscow. They're going to be holding the world congress of International PEN there in 2000. So they're becoming a more active state. They supply us with a lot of information. I imagine more cases will be coming out of Russia.

On the question of Turkey, again, in this book, only China has more writers in prison than Turkey. That's in the International PEN's -

Mr. Assadourian: Is that by percentage or by numbers?

Mr. Graham: Those are just numbers. Those are the cases we can document and follow as violations. They're people put in jail for the expression of their views.

Because of very strict draconian laws on the freedom of expression, mainly to fight the Kurdish question, it operates sort of as martial law. A journalist is now in jail. One of our honorary prisoners, an editor of a magazine, is in jail because she interviewed a Kurdish general as a journalist.

There's the very famous writer, Yasar Kemal, who was charged last year. However, he has not been imprisoned.

Basically, there's an agitation among Turkish writers and in Turkish PEN to fight those freedom of expression laws, or violations thereof, and PEN Canada is part of that, as is International PEN. It's a major movement of ours this year to help out there.

One of the problems is that Canada has very little clout there compared to the Europeans. The Turks want full entry into the European Union. The Nordic countries are very active and effective, more effective than we can be, but we do what we can in the Turkey situation.

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mrs. Gaffney.

Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): Thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee. I'm very familiar with PEN. It is a well-respected, well-known, worldwide organization. But I forget what ``PEN'' means. Does it just mean writers?

Mr. Graham: ``PEN'' began meaning ``poets, essayists and novelists.

Mrs. Gaffney: Poets, essayists and novelists. Okay, that answers my question.

Mr. Graham: Since then, of course, as I say, we've had journalists, screenwriters, essayists, publishers and translators. We've expanded the definition, but that's the origin.

Mrs. Gaffney: Okay. Thank you.

You've put forward many resolutions here. You submitted them on three countries in particular.

I don't think there's a member in this committee who isn't concerned with human rights around the world. We try to do everything we can. You have mentioned several ways in which we could do more.

Recently, some of us were at the United Nations in New York. We met with the Canadian representative to the UN Commission on Human Rights, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

We always look for ways in which we can improve. You certainly mentioned the friendship groups and the parliamentary associations. My colleague here, Bob Speller, is the Canadian chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I'll wait to hear all the good things that Bob and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are doing with regard to human rights, because I think they do have a prime opportunity to do that.

But you know, having been to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, as well as the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal, I sometimes think we're missing the boat on many opportunities. It bothers me somewhat, but I don't know what we can do.

I look at our embassies all over the world. Do we have somebody in our embassies, or is putting someone in our embassies kind of a very sensitive area? But that's a prime opportunity. We should probably be looking at embassies, but our embassies are interested in trade and in getting along and accessing that country in different ways. Could you comment on the embassies in particular?

This is the second question: is it important for us, being on the foreign affairs committee.... The previous Parliament had a subcommittee on international human rights. They felt human rights was so important that they had a continuing subcommittee. In fact, I think a person in your riding, John, probably was the chair of that committee.

.0955

Is it important that we should have a subcommittee on it, or are we able to handle it within this committee here?

Mr. Graham: First of all, I'll deal with the question of embassies. I became president of PEN Canada in June. Coming into it, I would have shared exactly what you just said.

Here's one of the things that impressed me when coming up to Ottawa. We've had three sessions now. This is our third one in coming to deal with the federal government. In September, we had a series of meetings at the Department of Foreign Affairs.

First of all, I was impressed by the fact that in many cases we do have a human rights officer in embassies. Sometimes that person has human rights and other things. For example, in Turkey the human rights officer in our embassy regularly monitors controversial freedom of expression cases, goes to court to watch these cases unfold, and is there with the representatives of other embassies to show that the international community is concerned about this case.

In other countries where we've been trying to get prisoners out of jail, we found out that in fact there is often a human rights officer in that country who is then it seems, through the ministry, quite happy - in some cases remarkably efficient - about getting more information and verifying information. Is our story right? Are there circumstances we don't know about? What's the situation of that person's family? So we found that we were able to mobilize that in a way that frankly surprised and pleased me. I think we could certainly do more of that.

There is also a desk in the ministry devoted to human rights. There is a desk officer of human rights. It sort of has a central coordinating body. That person has always been very good to us, because again, it's an exchange of information.

We've been working with that desk to find practical ways of how to get human rights front and centre on the department's Internet, for example. It isn't on it at the moment. How do you get human rights front and centre on the minister's new initiative on information technologies? How do you keep making human rights as important as the trade side in our initiatives around the world?

So that's part of a dialogue. They have basically been very receptive so far to our suggestions, because they also seem to want to do as good a job as we do and to be helpful.

So on the embassies, I think there are grounds for some encouragement.

In terms of the subcommittee, I had the understanding that there sort of is already a subcommittee of human rights chaired by -

Mrs. Gaffney: We don't call it that.

Mr. Graham: We met with the chair of that subcommittee, first of all, to learn about its work and to see how that committee could be mobilized.

Mrs. Gaffney: I guess I'm on that subcommittee.

Mr. Graham: But it's part of a problem such that it can get very quickly submerged or lost behind other issues. To keep it always in a higher profile is very important and sometimes difficult, because it's more abstract and less fruitful in some ways.

But in the long term, even on trade for example, we firmly believe that although trade will help democratize dictatorships, freedom of expression and democracy is a fundamental to trade before that.

Many business people going into China or Vietnam recognize that the rules are changing because the rule of law isn't well founded yet. Or in Vietnam, they find that the trade initiatives, the liberalization, is only going to the benefit of a few. That allows them to coalesce their position of authority and to become more suppressive and have more reason to suppress dissident elements, because they now have a monetary gain as well as a political gain.

So in many cases human rights has to go in tandem with trade for each other's mutual benefit. This can't really be seen in either case as doing one first so that the other will follow.

Mrs. Gaffney: A quick last question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Very quickly, because we have many questions.

Mrs. Gaffney: I know that you have probably a membership fee. How do you raise your money to do this international work?

.1000

Mr. Graham: We have 600 members who pay a fee of $60 per year, and we have other fund-raisers during the year that cover about half of our budget.

We have a small office staff of three, and we do all the lobbying, etc., through this small office.

Mrs. Gaffney: You have no government support?

Mr. Graham: We have no government support. We've never had government support, because we see that as inhibiting us in some way.

Mrs. Gaffney: That's right.

Mr. Graham: Half of that is membership, etc. We have an annual benefit performance that brings in the other half of the budget. So we raise all our money by ourselves. We've always been able to do that.

Mrs. Gaffney: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Speller, you've been referred to before in your work with the parliamentary committee, and we welcome your explanation.

Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to commend you on your work. I know it's very important, and as I travel around the Commonwealth, even within Commonwealth countries.... You've now brought up the whole question of Nigeria. I think about the fact that we've had all the Commonwealth leaders together taking a stand, and that still didn't do anything. I guess my first question relates to that.

How can countries, at the larger level...? I know the work you do is great, and I think I hear you saying that our foreign affairs officials help you in terms of getting you information. That relationship seems to be good. But at the bigger level, we're not having the success we should be having.

It seems that sometimes when the United States jumps in, somebody may get out of prison somewhere, but the problems still go on. We constantly face the question of whether trade or human rights is more important.

Our position has been, as a country, that if you can get into a trading relationship with a country, you can better influence. That seems to be the rule now internationally with a number of countries. But how do you get these countries to move, to understand the importance of human rights, and to get these people out of prison?

I know you've had successes, but there are still 900 people in prison. What could we be doing nationally, outside of getting all the different countries together, to help solve this problem?

Mr. Graham: My colleagues may want to address that, but I'd like to try.

There are two things. The great lesson, I think, of the murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa.... As you said, it happened when the Commonwealth leaders were meeting. The great lesson there was that the Commonwealth countries and other governments were too late to take this as a serious issue.

Organizations such as ourselves have been arguing the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa for many years. It was somehow dismissed in government terms as a sort of artsy, irrelevant.... It was something that was happening quietly down there in the middle of nowhere. Even though we kept saying to governments that this was a major event and it was a real event.... Our cases are vetted very closely. They can't be preaching violent revolution. There are standards of performance until you've become.... Even in that book.... We kept saying that this is a very legitimate case that shows a lot not only about Nigeria, but about third world countries, so take it seriously.

It wasn't until it was too late - governments were reacting at the last minute - that people sort of woke up. I think there's a lot of.... The first thing is a change of attitude, which is actually very important. We've considered these cases very methodically, and they should be taken very seriously when we come. That's one thing.

The second thing is that there seem to be some countries in which Canada particularly has some leverage and others in which it doesn't. It has to be recognized that we should focus on those in which we do have some leverage. PEN Canada recognizes that, and I think the Government of Canada recognizes that.

Every country - developing, third world, or whatever - every country has something it wants back. It wants membership in one of the international clubs. It wants a CIDA grant. It wants liberalized trade laws. It wants something back. To find out what that leverage is, how strong our leverage is in that particular case, and who our allies are when you're going, for example, to Burma or China - you're going through the ASEAN countries - and the pacts were there.... Who else can we ally with that has better clout than we have? Is it the Japanese or the Filipinos? But we can ally with them and ride with them to get some real changes in Myanmar and to say that this is important.

.1005

We're up against very tough beasts in many cases, and the solutions aren't easy, but those types of strategic alliances are really the only way we have to go. We always have to make it a priority.

Ms Gray: I would like to add to that. One of the things that distinguishes us from Amnesty is that we focus on writers. Amnesty has a much broader scope, because it's generally a human rights organization. We focus specifically on writers. Obviously writers are being put in jail for being critical of their regimes. In fact they're often the first signs that we should watch out and that something is happening within a regime. They're the critics of their regimes. They're particularly vulnerable, and they're an early warning sign of real problems. So looking at them specifically and at the broader issue of freedom of expression, often by encouraging or feeding into a movement for freedom of expression in a country, particularly in a country like Nigeria, is crucial in terms of supporting those who are criticizing the regime and is a balance against a government that is violating human rights.

For this reason, we were really disappointed with the recent announcement on Radio Canada International, because that's another aspect in which Canada was playing a role in promoting freedom of expression. We're very sad that the decision has been made to kill it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilbert: I would like to add to something that was just said. In fact, Ms Gray, I don't think we are just lacking in information. On the contrary, one must consider government responsibility, i.e. the political will to act, whether that be in international fora or elsewhere. I see here Mr. Dupuy who was ambassador to the United Nations and who therefore has had experience with this type of resolutions, their importance and their relative weight.

Mr. Speller, I would also emphasize that the Foreign Affairs Department has set up assistance programs for human rights groups in developing countries, as well as training programs for judges, lawyers and other people involved in human rights because in some countries it seems that there is no notion of what human rights involve. All this is slowly taking root.

Unfortunately, the countries that I'm talking about are precisely those whose behaviour is currently the worse. It is unfortunate to say so, but we hope that in the long run, there will be results.

I would also like to add to our colleague's remark about Radio-Canada International. I must say that in this case the federal government took a ridiculously wrong path. They felt the need to produce several flags at a cost of millions of dollars and they then turn around and say that they didn't have enough money to support what I would call a very important international flag, the voice of Canada in several languages. That is also a vehicle that can be used to voice democratic truths, is it not?

I think that we need to make the effort to support this organization, not from year to year, but permanently, like other major organizations such as RFI in France, Deutsche Welle in Germany, Voice of Britain, etc. I think that it is essential that we continue to contribute to this organization.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): We have two more speakers: Mr. Flis and Mr. Paré.

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Some of my questions about Russia and Mr. Nikitin have already been answered, so I'll skip those.

At the last meeting of the Subcommittee on Sustainable Human Development, which addresses international human rights, a gentleman by the name of Yogesh Varhade presented the plight of exploited children in India under the caste system. Do you have any writers - members of PEN - who have been writing to expose that exploitation: child labour and child sex exploitation? Do you have any members who are trying to expose that to the world?

.1010

Mr. Graham: There are none that I know of specifically. Most of our cases tend to be those who are more specifically opponents of government - I mean the regime itself - rather than those who are particular issue-oriented types of writers. It's possible, but there are none that I know of.

Mr. Flis: I think these writers can do a lot towards humanity. I'm thinking historically about over six million Ukrainians forced into starvation from 1930 to 1933. Many writers tried to expose that. The world didn't listen.

I was in Cambodia, where I walked on the killing fields. The writers tried to expose that genocide, but the world didn't listen.

So I think these -

Mr. Graham: We certainly had cases in those two situations.

Mr. Flis: Yes.

But I would just toss out concrete things that can be done. I wouldn't omit the traditional parliamentary vehicles that are available to members of Parliament. Number one is the petitions. You don't need thousands of names or signatures to bring to the world's attention one of these prisoners. All you need is 25 signatures. Any member would be only too happy to raise that on the floor of the House. What that does is that the entire diplomatic core listens to question period, standing orders, and petitions. In addition to that, because it's raised in the House of Commons, the ambassador here has to report it to his or her government. So I would make greater use of that vehicle. People don't use it because they feel they need 5,000 or 6,000 signatures to make an impact. All you need is 25 signatures.

Secondly, prior to each question period, there is a 15-minute period of Standing Order 31 that members can make. I remember making an SO with respect to something about China. I gave prior notice to the Chinese ambassador. That stirred such a concern that the Chinese embassy called the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister's Office gave the message that in our parliamentary system every member has the right to speak his voice.

Mr. Speller: That was a little confusing for them.

Mr. Flis: That was confusing for them, yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): It was in this case, anyway.

Mr. Flis: Opposition has further access to questions in question period. Mr. Paré has been very good about exposing some of these through question period.

Keep in mind that we're in Ottawa, where Parliament is, and the entire diplomatic core is here. It's embarrassing to that country. They meet each other at receptions. Because their country has been raised on human rights violations, it's quite embarrassing to them. So I wouldn't forget these little things that may seem simple but have quite an impact on the diplomatic core.

Mr. Graham: Thank you. That's very helpful.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): That's very useful advice.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: I would like to come back to a couple of points. First I would like to comment on what Mr. Gilbert said regarding the closure of Radio-Canada International.

I think that Mr. Gilbert is absolutely right in not understanding, because on the 6th of December, the honourable Lloyd Axworthy made a speech before the people here today on Canada's foreign policy in the era of information technology. Mr. Axworthy stated, among other things, that the strategic use of this information technology was a major foreign policy instrument and that this should be apparent in our foreign policy and in our programs. We must find a way of putting these new technologies and Canadian expertise to use abroad and to promote Canada and what it represents throughout the world.

.1015

I think that the decision to close Radio-Canada International was a very bad decision which contradicts the third element of our foreign policy, "Canada in the World" which says that Canadian identity and culture should be broadcast throughout the world. I just wanted to a make a brief comment; that is not I wanted to talk about.

You also mention that this is often an issue of political will. I think that is an example. Political will can be assessed if one looks at the degree to which our actions reflect our words. Does your organization have a strategy to raise the awareness of Canadians and Quebeckers with respect to the area you are working in so that these people can pressure the government, their politicians, to help free prisoners who are mistreated or imprisoned.

Second, given that politicians from developed countries currently believe that trade has absolutely exceptional virtues, and given that the publishing sector and writers are in themselves an industry, do you think there would be a way of using the politicians' own words to show that when writers are in prison, industry and trade suffer? Perhaps they would be more open to that type of argument.

Finally, Mr. Gilbert, you almost said earlier on that a condition should be attached to Canadian official development assistance - I dare not consider trade - , the condition being the respect for human rights.

I know that tying this with trade would be difficult. In fact, if Canada decided to end its relations with Vietnam because Trân Triêu Quân is imprisoned in that country and because we are not happy with their political system, obviously there are many countries that would take our place.

I understand that within international trade, Canada cannot unilaterally impose sanctions, unless it is for a very specific case. But in the case of official development assistance, there is so much need for this in the world that perhaps we could be more selective in terms of the values that Canada has always advocated.

Mr. Gilbert: Mr. Paré, you have raised several questions that you may already have the answers to.

I think that political will has to be shown, whether that be bilaterally or collectively. In the case of South Africa under apartheid, there was concerted action amongst countries to punish the white South African government. This was a great success which, in the end, helped bring about the triumph of democracy in South Africa. This type of cooperation can be used to put pressure on an uncooperative government, by using international conventions on human rights.

There were many factors in this case, including trade. There was a break in diplomatic relations. There were also sanctions regarding arms exports, etc. Refugee status was also granted to anyone who asked for it for good reason. Therefore, these measures have already been called for and used to exert pressure on an uncooperative state. Why could it not be done again?

I am no longer just talking about assistance programs, even though at the time, if I remember correctly, assistance programs were provided to dissident movements in South Africa, that we supported. So there are a whole series of measures that can be used. Do we still have the courage to take a path that could produce results?

.1020

I will put the question once again to our friend Michel Dupuy who worked with the United Nations and who has seen for himself the ability of his organization to act as well as its poor means.

In terms of trade, you mention the World Trade Organization. That is a new organization that is doing what GATT used to do. One shouldn't rule out attaching conditions to the way funds are provided in various parts of the world. Once again, it is possible; I'm not saying that this is realistic but really, why not stand up for these issues? These are possibilities. Once again, it is a question of political will on the part of government.

[English]

Mr. Graham: In response to your first two questions, in terms of public awareness, part of both of our organizations is to raise public consciousness through speeches, writing campaigns, attendance at literary events, we go to schools.... A major part of our work is to get that message out and to build a public constituency for it.

On the first point, Radio Canada International, one sometimes thinks of it as something Canadians use to pick up the news when they're on holiday or something. We were in the process with Radio Canada International, but only since July, to be able to use them. For example, they have a bilateral deal with China where the Chinese government can broadcast directly into North America through its facilities, and they can broadcast directly into China, uncensored, in Chinese.

When we realized that we had this existing ability to broadcast directly into China our cases, our concerns, the whole issue of freedom of expression, we entered into negotiations with Radio Canada International to see how we at PEN Canada could use it to get our message into China. To find out that may not be a vehicle we can use is disheartening and puzzling, for the reasons you suggest.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I think we have about five minutes left. It's a 10:45 vote.

Mr. Dupuy.

[Translation]

Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): I would like to thank you for your exceptional presentation that you gave us this morning. For the most part I share your opinions regarding the necessity of using pressure. This is often a question of judgment and of specific cases. There are times when the government of Canada has the necessary instruments to put very real pressure on government, either through assistance or trade. At other times, pressure can be absolutely ineffective. It is a very sensitive area.

I would like to talk about Radio Canada International. I share your concerns regarding Radio Canada International. I will tell you what my position is right now: I believe that Radio Canada International should continue.

Mr. Paré referred earlier to a decision that was made. In fact, I am not aware that any decision was made. What did happen was that the President of CBC announced that he would no longer be able to pay people working for Radio Canada International as of the 1st of March next year.

This is not a decision to close. It is a technical decision that he had to make because he had to give at least three months' notice, if not four, under the collective agreements. Therefore, he made a technical decision which is appropriate. However, the same thing has happened over the past two years, and you may have noted that over the past two years, the decisions that were made about Radio Canada International were positive.

I'm not saying that the decisions will be positive this time, but the Heritage ministers who have made decisions in the past have always ensured the survival of Radio Canada International, even though it was just for very limited periods of times and even though the decisions were subject to a review of our decisions over a longer period.

.1025

I wanted to point that out because those who want to keep Radio Canada International should not think that the book is closed and the final decision has been made.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): If there are no other questions or comments, we should probably bring this valuable meeting to an end, and thank the witnesses for their testimony. I think you received some valuable advice from the members of the committee, and you are welcome to this committee or to our offices at any time.

I notice that many of the prisoners on this list are imprisoned in countries with which Canada has extensive trade and other relations. Not only that, in the cases of Cuba, Chile and Vietnam, they are countries with whom we have dealt extensively recently. In the case of Chile, we signed a free trade pact. In the case of Cuba, of course, the Helms-Burton controversy. In the case of Vietnam, there have been prime ministerial and other high-level visits.

When you have cases of this kind - I was surprised to see the case from Chile - I think it would be very useful to tell parliamentarians about them. When the high-level officials from Chile come here, and there were a lot of them here about three weeks ago, it would give us the opportunity to raise cases with those officials.

I can't think of anything more effective than Mr. Assadourian going to diplomatic receptions armed with a name like an ambassador. You may have found a missile here with enormous -

Ms Gray: We'll be in touch.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I know Mr. Flis's comments are correct, because I once raised a question about Turkey, and the Turkish ambassador was on the phone within about 30 minutes. They do watch question period, they do hear standing orders, and they do know of our concern in these matters.

I think the countries you have chosen are particularly important for Canada, and it was very useful to have the prisoners in those countries identified for us today.

Thanks to all of you for this meeting today.

Mr. Graham: Thank you.

Ms Gray: Thank you.

Mr. Gilbert: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): We're suspended until 11 a.m.

.1027

.1112

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

It is our privilege today to have with us the Honourable Don Boudria, the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie. With the minister isJohn Robinson, who is vice-president of the policy branch of CIDA; Huguette Labelle, who of course is the president of CIDA; and Claudia Roberts, who is director general, finance and contracting management division.

We welcome you, Minister. I understand you'll be speaking to us today on your recent trip to Haiti and on the budget of the Canadian International Development Agency.

[Translation]

The Honourable Don Boudria (Minister of International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be with you here today.

As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, today I will mainly be speaking to you about the budget for International Co-operation and about the contracting process.

Before, however, I would like to quickly bring you up to date on Haiti and on the crisis in Central Africa, an issue that I have been greatly concerned and busy with over the past few weeks.

Three weeks ago, I appeared before you to describe in detail our co-operation program in Haiti and its connection with the United Nations support mission in Haiti or MANUHA. Since then, much has happened.

First, my trip to Haiti with our colleague, Mr. Philippe Paré, went very well. We were able to speak with President René Préval, members of the government and MANUHA as well as with a good number of Haitian men and women.

The situation is still very difficult in Haiti and there is still much to do. However, I am encouraged by what I saw and heard and I also assured the people we spoke to of Canada's co-operation. Mr. Paré will certainly be able to also tell you about our trip.

My trip also gave me the opportunity to see that projects financed by CIDA and implemented by our Canadian and Haitian partners are moving ahead. I am very proud.

.1115

In particular, I had the honour, along with President Préval, of inaugurating the first of 14 courts that we are building and rebuilding in some cases, under the Support Program for Justice in Haiti.

Legal reform is a critical factor in the democratisation of this country. This reform was undertaken along with the United States and France and is making progress. Furthermore, I was pleased to learn last Thursday that the United Nations Security Council decided unanimously to extend the support mission in Haiti for a period that could be as long as eight months.

In fact, the National Haitian Police need a transition period to acquire the necessary experience to carry out its mandate. Because of the commitment that we made, the extension of the United Nations' mission means that Canada will keep its peacekeepers and its military contingent there. Canada will therefore continue to play a major role within the international community to assist Haiti in consolidating stability and security in the country and to put it back on a path of development.

I will not speak any longer on that topic. I will now talk about the crisis in Central Africa, which some of our colleagues will probably want to speak about.

We have had to deal with a rapid and unforeseen development of events and adapt our plans accordingly. Because of the return to Rwanda of some 600,000 refugees from Zaire and because of the expected arrival of 500,000 more refugees from Tanzania by the 31st of December, there is a need for massive and concerted assistance.

Obviously the Government of Rwanda cannot deal alone with the enormous problems that reintegrating such a high number of people involves. At a meeting of the countries providing assistance chaired by Canada in Geneva, on the 23rd of November last, we considered these problems. In collaboration with representatives from Rwanda, we reached a consensus on the priorities that had to be set in order to ensure that refugees could be reintegrated peacefully.

Tomorrow evening, I will be leaving for Kigali where I will co-chair, with the Government of Rwanda and at its invitation, a second multiparty meeting. This meeting will start Friday morning. What we have to do now is establish a plan of action that reflects the priorities that were identified at the Geneva meeting.

We want to assist Rwanda in meeting its refugees' fundamental needs, especially those of women and children. At the same time, we will be implementing measures to monitor the respect for human rights and to consolidate national peace and reconciliation.

[English]

I'd be pleased to answer questions on these issues as well.

Let me now turn to developments at home. There are two issues I want to talk about this morning. One is the management of the budget reductions, and I also want to introduce you to a new, improved system of contracting for CIDA.

Let me start by the budget reductions. Canada's long-term viability to support the programs that Canadians value, including international assistance, will depend to a very great extent on our success in putting our finances on a more stable basis. As you know, this is what we have set out to do and it is what we are accomplishing as a government.

To this end, you will remember that in the 1996 budget the government announced reductions to the international assistance envelope of some $159 million for 1997-98 and a further $150 million reduction in 1998-99. The envelope had already been reduced, of course, by $434 million in the combined years of 1994-95 and 1995-96. This amounts to a 28% reduction over four years. We recognize that there are no easy solutions to implementing these reductions, but we're determined to meet these objectives without losing sight of our main goal, which is reducing poverty.

.1120

Our main focus will continue to be on poverty alleviation through the six program priorities: basic human needs, the environment, the situation of women, infrastructure services, human rights, democratic development, good governance, and private sector development.

We're committed, Mr. Chairman, to providing 25% of CIDA's budget to meet basic human needs such as primary health care, basic education, nutrition, water and sanitation, and humanitarian assistance. So the announcements and the details I'm giving to you today are not new cuts. They're the implementation of those cuts announced in last year's budget, and the announcements I will be making to you of course reflect those. I'm not revealing to you in advance what the Minister of Finance is obviously announcing in next year's budget. That's for him to determine. Of course if he gives me more money, I'll know very well where to put it in terms of our program.

[Translation]

Of course, the big question is this: how do we spread budget cuts? We consulted extensively on this topic with all involved. My predecessor, the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, organized round tables in nine cities throughout Canada, to obtain advice and suggestions on the best way to carry out these cuts.

The overview of the budget that I will provide you with today is based on those discussions as well as on discussions I had myself with our partners regarding the direction that Canadian men and women want the Canada Co-operation Program to take.

[English]

It was clear from all our discussions that Canadians want our focus to remain on the poorest countries and people. We have done everything we can to sharpen that focus. While the reduction will touch on every part of the official development assistance envelope, or the ODA envelope, not every program will be affected equally. That is of course to reflect the wishes and aspirations of those who've contributed to the consultation process. As well, some flexibility for new initiatives, such as the recently announced peace-building fund, will be required.

In addition, certain grants and contributions, such as our assessed contributions to some of our multilateral organizations, must be protected. That is the price of membership. In other words, if our assessed contribution to a particular multilateral organization is x number of dollars, there's no choice about it: that is the amount we pay, or we withdraw from the organization altogether. We cannot give them so much less 10% or less 8% and so on.

All geographic programs, Mr. Chairman, including those in central and eastern Europe, will be reduced by 8.3% and 8.1% over the next two years, as will be the IDRC. Each of the three traditional geographic aid programs will maintain its percentage of the budget, with Africa at 44%, as is the case now, Asia at 36%, and the Americas at 20%. And in keeping with what Canadians have told us about the importance of focusing on poverty and the poorest, 70% of these programs will be focused on low-income countries. We will also be concentrating about 70% of our resources on 25 countries.

Since the multilateral technical cooperation programs have been cut very significantly in previous budget reductions, our contributions to some major UN development organizations will be reduced less than a number of other programs.

In accordance with agreements already reached on reducing Canada's contributions, international financial institutions will be reduced by 7.3% in both years. In addition, our contributions to future replenishments of these institutions have been cut substantially.

With respect to programs undertaken by Canadian partners, some will be reduced less than other program areas next year. To cite a few, program-funded NGOs will be reduced by 7.1%, cooperatives by 6.1%, voluntary centres by 4.7%, universities and colleges by 3.8%, scholarships by 3.5%, environmental NGOs by 2%, and our industrial cooperation program by 5%.

.1125

[Translation]

Our partners know that we have to carry out these cuts. We will be in touch with them over the next few weeks to let them know how these cuts will affect them. What is reassuring is that we share the same goals they do, the same vision, which means that CIDA has the support of its partners in its fight to reduce poverty. NGOs also approve our intention to focus on young people in our development work.

Over the next few weeks, I will be making announcements about this. It is not only a question of focusing more on child poverty in our programs, but also involving Canadian youth in development, which can only give them a broader perspective on Canada and the world.

Perhaps this is the moment to depart from my text, Mr. Chairman, and remind the committee that a few days ago, World Canada Youth celebrated its 25th anniversary. The ceremony took place in this building.

By focusing on young people, we will make tomorrow's leaders aware of the importance of development. Raising public awareness, generally, is very important at a time of budget restrictions. Our messages have to be sent out to Canadians and we have to show them that Canada's international co-operation is being carried out rationally and, especially, efficiently.

[English]

This brings me to the next subject. Achieving greater transparency is a personal priority. It is reflected in our efforts to improve the contracting regime at CIDA, which I would like to turn to now.

I want to talk to you about open contracting. In fact the first objective of these improvements is to make the system more open and transparent. The second objective is to develop a faster, better, simpler and more inclusive regime that allows equal access from a broad spectrum of stakeholders from both the private and voluntary sectors.

The regime I'm announcing to you now was developed in wide consultation with our partners in the profit and not-for-profit sectors. They agreed that it would be appropriate to provide both sectors with access to contract and contribution opportunities.

This is far different from the old approach, where the competition for contracts was limited to the for-profit sector, and access to the contribution was limited to the non-profit sector. In other words, now they will both be able to continue to do their work in those areas, but in the other field as well, in each other's field.

These improvements are part of a process that began in 1994 when CIDA adopted the government's open bidding service, the OBS. The purpose of the OBS has been to solicit proposals from the private sector for service contracts in excess of $100,000. We are adopting a new one-step regime now, an improvement over the previously used two-stage contracting process.

Under the old system, stakeholders had to conform to an invitation to pre-qualify, followed by a formal request for costed proposals. This process was very time-consuming, involving more than 200 days from the time the notice was placed on the OBS to the time a winner was selected.

Under the new system, the pre-qualification stage will be eliminated. This will cut in half the amount of time required for the selection process, meaning quicker delivery of development assistance where it is needed.

Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, if one begins the process of tendering, and it takes 200 days before you achieve a selection, sometimes circumstances have changed in the interval.

The open-access approach for the profit and non-profit sectors will be tested on a 15-month basis. The other measure I've announced, of course, is designed to be permanent. The open-access approach will involve continuous discussions with our partners. Aside from ensuring open access and the implementation of an unsolicited proposal mechanism for both sectors, we will also pursue the implementation of a competitive standing-offer regime for assignments under $100,000.

.1130

This system is a quick and inexpensive way to secure consulting resources. It shortens the timeframe for program delivery and it saves on administrative resources within the agency. In addition, we're currently exploring ways to broaden access to the selection process by making better use of the Internet.

Some time during the next year hopefully we will be able to have everything on Internet, so that a bidder several thousand miles away will be able to obtain all the documentation, make a bid on the Internet, and do so under the new system I've just enunciated, in a one-step approach. One hundred days later, we should be able to identify a winning bidder.

[Translation]

Finally, contract information will be simplified in order to increase efficiency. We have undertaken a systematic review of our information and we are currently consulting our partners on changes that should be made. We will begin making those changes at the beginning of the new year.

[English]

So those are the issues I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee this morning,Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the committee for agreeing to have me testify this morning, and I would welcome any questions you or members of the committee may have.

I will be assisted by the people with me here at the table in answering any or all of these questions, or for that matter any other topic committee members may want to raise.

Mr. Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much, Minister. We'll begin with questions. We have some questions.

Monsieur Paré.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré: Welcome to our committee, Mr. Boudria.

My first question is about the trip we did together in Haiti. When we met the president and the United Nations' representatives, the president insisted on the troops carrying out projects that the people could see during their next mandate. I would like to know if measures have been taken to meet the Haitians' request.

Second, the president himself told us about two particularly important needs, including the rebuilding of the airport. He said that he was in contact with another country and that in your case, Minister, he wanted to focus on the road linking the airport and Port-au-Prince. First, I would like you to tell us what you think about that. Then I will come back to the issue of official development assistance.

Mr. Boudria: With respect to the first part of our colleague's question, I myself told other ministers about the president's wishes regarding the possibility of our military contingent participating more actively and therefore more visibly in the field during their humanitarian activities.

So that other members of the committee understand the reasons behind this, I would like to say that it is important for president Préval and for the people to see that soldiers, before leaving, have participated in good works. That is what the president called humanitarian activities. He said that in this way people would have very good memories of our military presence.

The president feels that this is a very important message to send to the Haitian population that, after the departure of our military forces, will have to keep this respect for public authority. That was the reason behind this conversation. I told my colleagues about it when I returned.

.1135

Regarding the second part of your question, that is whether Canada could contribute to rebuilding the road - if my memory is correct, it is about five kilometres long - we know that this is a very costly project. We also wonder if this should be Canada's major role given our current budget restrictions. How many small courts could be built in Haiti with the $4 or $5 billion that would be spent on building a road? How many people have been imprisoned in that country for a long time and are waiting to be heard in court and can't be heard because there is no structure, no lawyers and no judges? Often, those who are acting as judges or lawyers have not been trained as they should be. We need to ask, therefore, what would be the best use of our money.

If we had a lot more money, the answer would be to do both, naturally. But that is not the issue. We need to decide what we can do with the funds given the budget restrictions that I have mentioned. I can tell you that I have a fixed amount to use except, of course, if the Minister of Finance decides to be more generous in his next budget. In any case, at this point in time, the amount will not change. We therefore have to make the best use of the funds that we have, manage them well, and use them in the most productive way possible, while taking into account Haiti's immediate needs.

I wonder if Ms Labelle has heard more about the airport project and if she has something to add.

Ms Huguette Labelle (President, Canadian International Development Agency): I don't think a project like that will be possible unless a number of countries providing funds join together. We then wouldn't have to eliminate the possibility. Obviously, this is an important project for Haiti in its long-term development - they want to increase opportunities for investment - but it is less urgent than improving the justice system. I think that we should still discuss this project with other countries providing assistance. Over the next few months, there will be meetings on Haiti's longer-term development planning.

Mr. Paré: A few weeks ago, three organizations, the North- South Institute, the Institute for Sustainable Development and the IDRC, presented what has been called the Strong report. One of its recommendations, which is both interesting and disturbing, is that 15% of Canada's official development aid be used to set up an international communications network to link developing countries.

I would like to know whether this 15% played any role in the cuts announced by the minister, and whether there will be any in the end. I'm coming back to an old question that has often been discussed. At a time when the Strong report talks about 15% of the ODA budget on an information network, can the minister and Ms Labelle finally tell us that, in the case of the Development Information Program, there will be a move to earmark the petty 5% that the NGOs were requesting for public information, given that there is a connection between these two points?

Mr. Boudria: Let's look at the issues one at a time. On the first, regarding all these networks, I think the same report asked CIDA to invest 25% of its staff in the area of knowledge. I'm sure you saw that in the report as well. I met with these people in my office and I asked them whether their knowledge included initiatives such as training for judges. Do technology transfers or bilateral initiatives come under the heading of knowledge? Their answer was no.

.1140

If they do not include this type of initiative in their calculations, it is hardly surprising that they found there was a weakness in this area. We feel we are spending more than 25% in the area of knowledge at the moment. That was the main recommendation contained in that report.

As to the 15% for the establishment of an information network, that is in no way reflected in our budget.

Third, you asked whether we will again be earmarking 5% of the budget for public information. The answer is no, because our resources are too meagre. We have to do what must be done in the developing countries. I do not think it would be a good idea to return to a time during which the government invested millions and millions of dollars every year in all sorts of advertising. We can no longer afford that. And even if we could, with all the crises going on throughout the world, I would prefer that we use the money to help people in need.

There is no doubt that we have to raise the awareness of Canadians. Perhaps we could do that by making the system more transparent, although we already have a high degree of transparency because of certain changes that were made in 1994 and those we are announcing today, to improve the system further. I plan to be available to travel to get this message out to the people of Canada. That's what I will be doing at noon today at UNICEF, or tomorrow morning in Toronto, or in other places. My presence, yours and that of other colleagues and the transparency of the system will convey the correct message about the need for development assistance.

We must not invest in advertising alone. I do not mean that public education is not important, but it is no substitute for proper management. I also hope we will be able to manage this effectively and that we will all be able to get across the message about the importance of the international role played by Canada in this regard.

Mr. Paré: I would just like to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to remind you that the Public Participation Program - and Ms Labelle could confirm this - was not an advertising program. It was really something done by the NGOs working in the field. I just wanted to clarify this point, which I consider important.

Mr. Boudria: There were two programs. It is quite acceptable to some NGOs to have the Canadian people providing them with budgetary support, but we simply do not have the funds. Since the dollars are becoming scarce, I think that it is better to invest in areas where we get the best return, the best bang for the buck.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I didn't quite understand one of the changes you are proposing for the contracting process. Did you say that profit and non-profit contractors will have equal access to both fee-for-services contracts and contracts financed by grant money? Did I understand you correctly?

Mr. Boudria: Here we're referring to the competition for contracts and the contributions. Contributions were strictly limited to the non-profit sector, and the competition for contracts was strictly limited to the profit sector.

This had caused rather unusual circumstances. For instance, if a particular university or another institution wanted to make a bid, they had to go through all sorts of contortions to be able to do so. They had to start a foundation, they had to call themselves the University of Something Inc. in order to form some sort of a.... I don't know if I should call it that, but it was almost an artificial entity for the sole purpose of obtaining CIDA contracts in areas where they had the expertise.

.1145

Now, I didn't think this was a particularly right thing to do. Why don't we just open it up? Let everyone bid, and it works. And, of course, I think if we open it on one side, where the quasi-public not-for-profit sector can bid against those in the private sector, it is only legitimate to have the opportunity to do the same in reverse.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, that's what I thought you meant, and I certainly have no problem with the first half of your thesis. I find it a little problematical though that a Lavalin or a Bombardier could now compete against universities for a contributory agreement.

Mr. Boudria: It would have to be a no-profit initiative.

Mr. Morrison: Oh, okay.

Ms Labelle: Those are the criteria.

Mr. Boudria: It would have to be a no-profit initiative on their part.

Mr. Morrison: And they would have to be documented that there would be no profit?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Boudria: I would think so. Just saying so doesn't qualify.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Morrison: Okay. Now I presume that in due course you are going to be providing us with the proposed revised contracting terms. I wonder if you could go into a little more detail as to how it's going to work.

At first blush, the elimination of the pre-qualification stage sounds like a very good idea, but what will the process be now? I mean, you have -

Mr. Boudria: Okay, I'll describe it to you.

Mr. Morrison: You're opening it widely for everyone who wants to...who will put up the money, put the effort into it to put in a bid. Where do we go from there?

Mr. Boudria: Okay. Under the present system, as you know, people were invited to make a pre-qualification. I've asked Dr. Labelle to give me a list of how many people typically submitted bids on any given contract. I found out that there were virtually none where there were more than fifteen bidders. There were virtually none at the pre-qualification level, and most cases were below ten.

The whole purpose of having a two-step affair was to identify that there were 200 people. Then you narrowed it down to a few so that not everybody had to make a detailed bid, because they didn't have to spend all the money preparing detailed documents, and so on. Well, if there are only a handful of people bidding every time, it seems to me the whole exercise was somewhat wasteful, or at least unnecessary.

I think it was a good idea to have it, because when they started on the OBS system, there was no way of analysing what the take-up, the demand, would be. But after this system has been in place for two years, it has now become obvious that the number of people who submit at the pre-qualification level is generally under ten. Many times it is five, six, and so on.

The purpose of the second step was then to narrow it down to four, five or six. Well, if you only have five or six to start with, what do you narrow it down to, if I can end a sentence with a preposition? What you do, of course, is just repeat the same list the second time.

That seemed to me to be wasteful for the people placing bids. It delayed the projects for100 days. Second, whenever you do have a two-step affair where you remove some of the people, you know, some people could see that as somewhat arbitrary.

Mr. Morrison: Some people did, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Boudria: Well, I don't know, but in any case, why have it? Why have it? Putting the system on OBS was definitely a good move. After two years I think we've identified that there doesn't seem to be a necessity to have the two-step, because not that many were submitting to start with.

Yes, there may have been one or two examples where twenty of them bid, or something like that, but no more than one or two. So it wasn't worth keeping it, because it was delaying the process. Anyway, I think it's more transparent to have it this way.

Mr. Morrison: Okay, but I guess you didn't quite get to my question. Now, we're on the same frequency, up to the point where you get your twelve bids. Let's say that for the sake of argument. Where do you go from there?

Mr. Boudria: Well, the best value wins, of course.

.1150

Mr. Morrison: Okay, so there is no further winnowing? The minister doesn't get a chance to pick anybody out of that list? It's all going to be a conventional bidding process, as I know it in the business.

Mr. Boudria: It's going to be basically the same as the one at Public Works and Government Services. It will be virtually the same.

Mr. Morrison: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Is that all, Mr. Morrison?

Mr. Morrison: Oh, if I have a couple of minutes left, I have one more question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): You had 44. You have two minutes if you want to ask another question.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, and it has nothing to do with CIDA bids; it does have to do with CIDA consultants.

I've had a question on the Order Paper for a couple of months. I'm trying to find out what branches or divisions of CIDA have in-house consultants, how much they make, their terms of reference, their résumés, whether they are previous CIDA employees, etc. I can show you the thing in print.

I can, of course, go the access to information route on this. I'm hoping to avoid that.

Mr. Boudria: You won't have to.

Mr. Morrison: Would you perhaps ask someone to pay attention to my question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Boudria: No, no, it's not a matter of paying attention; it's a matter of putting the stuff together.

You have to take into account, Mr. Chairman, that CIDA has over 1,000 employees, and a number of them do various functions. Some of them are all over the place, in all parts of the world. We have CIDA projects in 130 countries.

Mr. Morrison: I'm only asking -

Mr. Boudria: So when you're asked to put together résumés of people, and questions like that, it's going to take a little longer. But it's just about complete. And there's no intention on my part to delay anything that's on the Order Paper, or anything like that. On the contrary, as soon as it's there, I can assure you it will be signed the same day, unless I'm out of the country that day, doing a function of some sort. At that point it will done the day of my return.

Mr. Morrison: Okay. If it's any comfort, I'm only asking about consultants actually working in the headquarters building. I'm not asking about consultants in the field.

Mr. Boudria: But I'm told that it's over a number of years, as well.

Mr. Morrison: Yes.

Mr. Boudria: Well.... Yes, it's being done.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, This is the fourth time we have met you, and I think we should stop meeting like this for the next year, at least until the beginning of the next year.

My question has to do with applications to the ministry. When you receive these applications in the ministry, and everything is processed, with other ministers we usually get a note saying such and such organization in your district is putting forward the following application. If you have any input on the subject, would you do so? Do you have such a program in your -

Mr. Boudria: No. With respect, we are already following the OBS system, and it would pretty well run contrary to that. If we're going to go from that, and make it even more transparent, I wouldn't be very comfortable with such a system for the attribution of contracts.

Mr. Assadourian: So this is a particular contract between the two parties? It has nothing to do with -

Mr. Boudria: If you mean that once a contract is given, if a local member wants to announce it in his constituency or something, that's another story.

Mr. Assadourian: Yes.

Mr. Boudria: But not in the contract-awarding process.

Mr. Assadourian: No, no.

Mr. Boudria: Oh, yes. Well, I generally do that. Over recent days I've sent a letter to all MPs telling them who my regional assistant is for the various parts of the country. If they want details like that, or want to know what's going on - after a contract has been awarded though, of course....

Mr. Assadourian: To make an announcement in the church hall or community centre?

Mr. Boudria: Oh, sure, I have no objection to that.

Mr. Assadourian: Do we do that on a regular basis now, or are we going to be doing it?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, we do it a lot more. I place a lot of emphasis on that, on letting MPs know as many things as possible.

The other day, for instance, I was making an announcement regarding Rwanda. A couple of hours ahead I sent an advance copy to Monsieur Paré on the floor of the House.

I believe Mr. Morrison was not in the House that day. Were you?

Mr. Morrison: I think you gave me one too.

Mr. Boudria: Okay, well I did it too. I try to do that as much as possible -

Mr. Assadourian: That is because I'm asking for more communication.

Mr. Boudria: - to keep colleagues as well informed as I can. I want to make that a priority. And I think it's good to have communication, particularly when it involves assisting the needy and so on, and cooperating with other countries. I think we have every reason to work together and that's what I'd like to do.

.1155

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms Debien (Laval East): Good morning, minister. I have two questions and a comment.

My first question is about Haiti. We know that one of the main difficulties in peace-keeping in Haiti involves the disarmament of the former leaders of the coup. We read in the newspapers recently that that was still one of the main problems people had in ensuring and keeping the peace in Haiti. From your trip to that country, how do you see the situation, and what efforts are underway to solve this problem once and for all?

My second question is about the cuts to CIDA. You mentioned earlier that a number of budget cuts were being made over four years, involving reductions of some 28%. I would like to know by what percentage CIDA's budget is being cut.

I come now to my comment, and to a request regarding contracts. I would have liked to have a text, because the subject seems quite complicated, minister. I would therefore like whether we could get a document explaining the verbal remarks. You and Ms Labelle are familiar with this field, but we are not. That's why I think it is important that we get some explanations about developments in this area.

Mr. Boudria: First of all, a press release will be issued later today or tomorrow and will be followed by a letter I will be sending to all my colleagues to explain the new contracting system. Second, those who usually bid, those who showed an interest in the past, will also be informed about the new system. Of course, the information will also appear on the OBS. So the information will be distributed.

In response to your question about CIDA, I would ask you to give me a moment, and I will ask my officials whether we have the figures for previous years.

In the meantime, I could perhaps talk about the issue of weapons in Haiti. Both Mr. Paré and myself raised this matter. In fact, I think Mr. Paré was the one who asked the question. This clearly remains a matter of concern for the local authorities. It is also certain that the longer the foreign troops are in Haiti, the more the old system will be demobilized and become rusty. I'm not necessarily talking about guns that have been buried, but everything deteriorates with time, as we know. Three years after the fact, former soldiers are probably much less interested than they were formerly. The old guns are no longer working, and so on.

The local authorities and the foreign troops in Haiti are certainly hoping that time will help solve the problem. Moreover, and along the same lines, respect for the law grows as time passes. I spoke earlier about respect for the troops; the same goes for the police. Once the police officers who are being trained at the moment, with the support of police forces from Montreal, Ottawa- Carleton and elsewhere, become more experienced, they will gain people's respect.

.1200

So those who might want to take up arms will no longer have the support of the general public. Just a year ago, we were told that people would not have shown any respect for police officers directing traffic in Port-au-Prince. Today, these officers are respected.

Today, the cars stop and people listen to the police. People see what they are doing and are starting to feel some respect for them. We heard anecdotes of this type, and I think it is important.

I can tell you about the cut to industrial co-operation. Last year, 1995, it was 11%. The cut we are proposing today is 5%.

Ms Debien: I said that I had two questions, one request and one comment.

My comment will be very brief, Minister, and it is somewhat a cry of despair regarding Central Africa. The Canadian initiative for humanitarian aid to Central Africa happened almost a month and a half ago. You told us earlier that tomorrow you will be attending the second meeting after many others held with the various countries. You said that you have reached the stage of devising an action plan to meet the humanitarian aid priorities in Rwanda.

I said my comment was somewhat a cry of despair. It is true that I find this to be a desperate situation. After a month and a half, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned to Rwanda, those people have received absolutely no humanitarian aid, or very little. And at the moment, we know how many people have died when they returned to their country.

That is my comment. I have no solution, no more than the Canadian government has, I imagine. I just want to say that after a month and a half, I find the situation inhumane, despite all the humanitarian aid we may be able to provide.

Mr. Boudria: That is one viewpoint. But there is another side to the story. Some 600,000 people have gone home to Rwanda.

Ms Debien: How many of them are dead?

Mr. Boudria: I don't know, but 600,000 people have gone home, and that process has generally been peaceful.

An hon. member: But under what conditions did this occur?

Mr. Boudria: When they reached Rwanda, NGOs were there to help them. Of course, that is not true of those who did not return, but some of them were able to take advantage of this assistance. Can we say that two thirds or three quarters of the refugees have gone home? I don't know, but in any case, we did what we could for those who went back. Canada announced $15 million in aid, $13.5 million of which has already been committed. We are doing things, such as building little houses for OXFAM (Quebec) and other agencies so that people returning have a place to live. That is something. We are really doing something for those people.

.1205

The first meeting, which I chaired, was held in Geneva on November 23. The purpose of the meeting was to determine Rwanda's needs, and the Rwandan government authorities came with their lists of priorities. The NGOs, the UN officials and other organizations, together with representatives from about 20 countries, took part in the meeting. In all, there were 135 people.

We drew up a list of priorities, and we are going over there tomorrow for a meeting that I will be co-chairing on Friday morning. We are going to announce that all parties will provide funds to continue helping these people rebuild their lives in Rwanda. Second, we will be providing similar services for the 600,000 or 700,000 Rwandans who are arriving from Tanzania as we speak.

I don't know whether or not you know that last week an agreement was signed between the two countries to repatriate these people by the 31st of December. Is this a realistic objective? I don't know. However, the two countries intend to resettle all these people.

The other day in Geneva, the Rwandan authorities were telling us about their needs in the area of justice. There is a shortage of judges, of lawyers to argue cases to ensure that justice is done and to ensure that people's confidence in the justice system is somewhat restored.

We heard that today some people are living in the houses that were formerly lived in by the people who are now coming back from Zaire. So when people arrive at their former homes and ask the current occupants to leave, the latter may reply that if their homes had not been destroyed, they would not have come to live in these houses.

None of this is very good for national reconciliation. So we need programs and financial supporters to build houses for these people, to help them get used to living together again and to reconcile their differences. All these efforts are under way. We should not say that the efforts to date have been a failure, because, on the contrary, they have been well coordinated and good things have been done.

Some NGOs are managing to do a bit of work in Zaire at the moment. Of course, we would have liked to have done more. Canada led all the other countries in this regard. I don't think we should apologize for the good we managed to do together. My comment applies to all the political parties, yours and mine, that supported the initiative passed by the House of Commons regarding a military force to provide humanitarian aid.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mrs. Gaffney, you had a question. The minister has been so helpful with his longer answers that -

Mr. Boudria: I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I didn't mean it that way.

Mr. Boudria: Incidentally, if any of you are going to the Roger Moore lunch for UNICEF -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Can you answer a brief question for Mrs. Gaffney?

Mrs. Gaffney: You mentioned that 25% of the CIDA budget goes to basic human needs in third world countries. Of that 25%, 20% went to the western hemisphere and 44%, I think it was, went to Africa.

Mr. Boudria: No. We're missing various percentages here. That's not the way it works. If you just take our bilateral aid for a minute -

Mrs. Gaffney: Why don't you wait for my question and then you can answer the whole thing at once. When I ask the question, you can get into that.

I have always felt that we have an obligation to the western hemisphere, certainly in terms of Canada's peace and security in this side of the world, so why do we not give more aid to the Americas, to Central and South America and to the Caribbean islands?

We seem to pour more money into the African nations, which do need it, and the Asian countries, which do need it. But there are European countries over there too that can provide their support, and I'm sure they don't provide support to the Americas.

.1210

Mr. Boudria: The bilateral aid to the region has gone from 17% to 20% in 1995, so the part going to the Americas is increasing. Of our aid budget, 44% is in Africa. I hate to put it as graphically as this, but the disasters we're seeing now in Rwanda and Zaire and elsewhere are in Africa. I don't mean to say that there are not poor people in other places. Our largest aid project anywhere in the world is in Haiti. That's our largest project and it's in our hemisphere. Of course if we were to take the overall, and if we were to ask on which continent we find the greatest number of poor people, it's in Asia. You see? So it's neither Africa nor the Americas in terms of absolute numbers. By the way, our second-largest program, and very close to Haiti, is in Bangladesh.

Mrs. Gaffney: The question is, do the European nations supply aid to the Americas?

Mr. Boudria: The European Union does: Germany...the U.K. is in the Caribbean, I'm told, and so on. We are increasing that portion as a percentage. And as I said, our largest single project today is in fact in the Americas region. It is in Haiti, and it's the project that my colleague, Mr. Paré, and I visited some three weeks ago. I would love to have even more resources available to me. Needless to say, we could always use more. The only debate then could be where we would put the extra money, but that's not the proposition.

On the other issue, when we are talking about the percentages, when we talk about basic human needs and so on, that is the percentage of overall budget spent. When we're talking about the regional expenditures, that is the bilateral aid given to each region, if you follow what I'm saying. In other words, some of the numbers find themselves in both places.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much, Minister. Mr. Schmitz pointed out to me that the recent publication of the North-South Institute has a whole section at the end of statistics by region for Canadian development assistance. You might want to take a look at that work.

Mr. Boudria: That, Mr. Chairman, is an excellent report. I don't know if all committee members have had a copy of it. If not, I would recommend to the chair that members all be provided with a copy of this document. It's a most helpful tool in terms of identifying what is done everywhere. It would be of use, I think, to all of the members of your committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): The clerk tells me we're having a meeting in February that deals specifically with this report.

Mr. Boudria: I'm sure every member will be given a copy then. Good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I would like to thank the minister, Madam Labelle, Mr. Robinson, and Ms Roberts for coming here today and answering so many of our questions and presenting so much information about the activities of CIDA. We very much appreciate your presentation today.

I have a couple of announcements I would like to make.

First, in addition to the debate on NATO expansion this afternoon, the committee will meet to adopt the report of the subcommittee on the review of SIMA.

The second announcement is that Mr. Assadourian circulated a motion about Radio Canada International. Since we do not have a quorum at this point, I would ask him to present it at 3:30 p.m. and we'll take it as the first item, presuming we have quorum at that point, and then we can vote on this motion or whatever seems appropriate at that time.

Mr. Assadourian: Can I ask you a quick question to clarify things for myself? If everybody agrees to it, what's the point of having a quorum? Do we have to have a quorum?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): To vote we have to have a quorum.

Mr. Assadourian: Even though it may be unanimous.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): They are the rules under the Standing Orders.

I declare the meeting adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page