DISSENTING OPINION BY THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS
REPORT ON ENDING GLOBAL CHILD LABOUR EXPLOITATION
FEBRUARY 1997
Foreword:
The Bloc Québécois took part with great interest in the work of the Subcommittee on Sustainable Human Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the goal of which was to investigate the global exploitation of child labour. We want to say how impressed we were by the quality and range of the evidence heard by the Subcommittee throughout its proceedings. It is thanks to this evidence that we were able to tackle satisfactorily the very complex issue of child labour.
The Bloc Québécois members played an active role in the discussions, and their considerable contribution is reflected in the Subcommittee's report. After an in-depth study of the first version of the report, we were able to have the government party incorporate a series of important changes that have improved the final version. For example, we proposed changes to almost all the recommendations, and these were adopted virtually in toto in the final report.
Despite the significant changes, however, some elements that we regard as essential were dismissed by the Liberal members. Our observations on these elements are discussed in this minority report.
Before going any further, we want to stress that we were extremely disappointed with the poor quality of the French version of the Subcommittee's report. We have had to deal with this problem for more than three years now. In addition, the hurried and unexpected changes of deadline, the result of poor planning, are unacceptable. We trust that we will not have to work in such conditions again.
Working with the civil society in Canada-Recommendation 16
In the majority report, the section leading up to recommendation 16 is entitled, "Supporting the Participation of Civil Society". To expand the approach, the Bloc Québécois proposed that the following element be added to the recommendation: "The Subcommittee further recommends that the federal government re-establish CIDA's Public Participation Program (that is, grants to NGOs working to raise public awareness in Quebec and Canada)".Funding for CIDA's Public Participation Program was eliminated by the Liberal government, without justification, on April 1, 1995. The aim of the program was to provide financial support to Canadian non-governmental organizations dedicated to informing the public about development-assistance issues and increasing Canadians' awareness of more specific problems, such as the exploitation of child labour. Many NGOs in communities all over the country benefited from the federal funding to the Public Participation Program.
We believe that public awareness and participation are vital if concrete results are to be achieved in the area of development assistance, and especially when it comes to the exploitation of child labour. As many witnesses told us, and as the report makes clear, participation by the civil society is of the utmost importance in achieving the goals of Official Development Assistance (ODA). The primary mandate of CIDA's ODA program is to reduce poverty in the world, as mentioned in the foreign policy statement, Canada in the World1. Widespread popular support is just as fundamental to maintaining and increasing the resources allocated to ODA.
In focussing on the exploitation of child labour as a subject for its consideration, the Sub-Committee identified a problem of worldwide scope whose main cause is unquestionably poverty. Consequently, the main solution to this complex problem necessarily involves sustainable human development, by means of a holistic approach based on meeting fundamental human needs. We note that the government states that, since 1995, 25% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) has been allocated to meeting fundamental human needs. However, despite the government's fine promises, a study by the North-South Institute indicates that the actual portion of ODA earmarked for fundamental human needs is much closer to 13%2. Furthermore, the government continues to slash ODA, the total budget for which will have been reduced by 28% in the four years the Liberals have been in power. The Bloc Québécois and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC), on the other hand, propose that the portion of ODA devoted to meeting fundamental human needs should be increased to 50%.
It is ironic that recommendations 15 through 18 of the report place greater emphasis on the development of new technologies than on concrete ways of achieving the main objectives of sustainable human development. A preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearings, however, proposed solutions relating to sustainable human development, while very little mention was made of new information technologies. Canada may legitimately be looking to position itself on global high-technology markets, but that does not necessarily mean that bringing the developing world onto the Internet is the solution.
We deplore the new direction that Mr. Axworthy intends to give to ODA, particularly since he made the decision without consultation.3 In fact, he seems to be more concerned about promoting his Canadian International Information Strategy (CIIS)4 than about really searching for appropriate solutions to the problem of exploitation of child labour. Exploitation of child labour results primarily from extreme poverty, and child victims of exploitation are a million miles removed from our utterly Western notions of virtual communication. It was also for this reason that the Bloc Québécois insisted on recommending that the government provide multi-year funding for Radio Canada International, which, we note, was ostensibly overlooked in Mr. Axworthy's infamous CIIS. It was nevertheless claimed that the CIIS was based on existing communications networks.5 According to an RCI journalist, in Rwanda there are 14,000 telephones, but there are 500,000 radios6, which is an obvious demonstration that the best ways of contacting disadvantaged populations are not necessarily the ways the government is promoting.
Despite a discourse calling for the active participation of the civilian population, the government is continually and very autocratically seizing more and more powers for itself. In various fields such as information, culture and international co-operation, it is alarming to observe that the federal government, by means of over-centralization, is stifling the machinery of democracy. For example, the government cancelled the Public Participation Program (PPP) at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the following year created the Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development (CCFPD) at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (FAITC), to which it would like to give the responsibilities that were formerly entrusted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), with their deep roots in Canadian society. By using the Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy Development, the government will ensure that it always has control over the information the public receives. That is also why Liberal MPs stubbornly insisted on keeping in the majority report all references to the CCFPD and use of its resources, and have refused to support our recommendation to re-activate the PPP. The government is proclaiming from the rooftops that public participation is to be encouraged, but continues to cut off vital support for grassroots organizations that provide crucial information to Canadians. We consider it important to denounce this flagrant contradiction.
Action through Regional and Other Multilateral Organizations-Recommendation 5
The Bloc Québécois approves recommendation 5, which we ourselves helped strengthen. Our party is in favour of Canadian leadership in the various international forums so that it is able to raise the issue of child labour, primarily with a view to finding ways of establishing a mandatory international standard. The predicament for Liberal members is that, on the one hand, they have endorsed this approach, and on the other, their government has announced that at the next Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum (APEC) Summit, to be held in Vancouver this fall, there will not be one single item on the agenda that involves human rights. According to an article in the Globe and Mail7, the APEC Director General in Canada stated that there was no question of discussing human rights at the Vancouver conference. Furthermore, the federal government has even declined to endorse a parallel Vancouver conference on trade and human rights, organized by Canadian and international human rights groups.This government may well boast about celebrating Canada's Year of Asia-Pacific, but everyone realizes that its concept of international relations remains focussed primarily on trade and excludes human rights. These examples illustrate clearly that the fine words uttered by the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs are nothing but empty phrases when his very own government takes action that is in direct opposition to the position he is defending.
Philippe Paré, M.P. for Louis-Hébert
1
Canada in the World, p.47
2
North-South Institute, Une promesse partielle? Le soutien canadien au développement social dans le Sud, Alison
Van Rooy, 1995
3
Stackhouse, John, Canada to change foreign-aid focus, The Globe and Mail, January 15, 1997
4
Announced on December 6, 1996
5
Foreign Policy in the Information Age, speech by Minister Axworthy, Ottawa, December 6, 1996
6
Jean Bériault, La nouvelle politique canadienne de communications internationales: Pour branchés seulement!,
Le Devoir, December 12, 1996
7
Ross Howard, Summit agenda ignores rights, The Globe and Mail, February 17, 1997