Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 23 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:20 p.m. with a delegation of the Council of the Nation of Algeria.
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. President, it is a great honour to welcome you to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate of Canada. Our committee is composed of supporters of the government and members of the opposition. I realize you have had a busy time in Ottawa. The officials who arrange your visit do not allow much extra time.
The committee has concentrated almost entirely on trade matters for the last eight or ten years. We have been very interested in what has been happening in Europe and in Asia Pacific. We do a great deal of trade -- particularly from Western Canada -- with Japan and with Asian countries. The financial troubles there have caused us very great concern, not only because of the impact on our own economy, but because of the hardship it is causing our trading partners. We are also interested in what has been happening in Africa.
I know our time is short, so I will not consume too much of it by talking about things that are of concern to us. You are here as our guests, and I will rely upon you to raise topics you to the committee. Mr. President, please do not hesitate to initiate the discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachir Boumaza, President of the Council of the Nation of Algeria: Mr. Chairman, in speaking, I fear that I might overstep my prerogatives a little. In fact, I am here to bring you greetings. I would have liked to have a discussion ensue between the chair of the Senate foreign affairs committee and qualified officials from our Council of the Nation. I may be venturing somewhat into their territory. I fear that I may be accused of being undemocratic, but since you have asked me to, I will try to speak on their behalf.
We are among friends here in Canada. For convenience sake, we often use such terminology, but I do believe that Canada and Algeria have a long-standing relationship which is in the process of growing stronger. I have often stated that we are Canada's leading trade partner in Africa and the Middle East. We hope to increase our exchanges with your country and in the process consolidate our relationship.
By relations between Canada and Algeria, I do not mean that we need to increase our trade or improve the figures as reported by the chambers of commerce, but rather strengthen our political association and the quality of our long-standing human relations which translate into similar positions on the international scene. In a world dominated by materialism, such agreement is not possible without strong interpersonal relations. It is in this spirit that we are here today.
One thing I can say to our Canadian friends is that we are overcoming the problems with which our country is currently grappling. I am not just saying this. We are overcoming our difficulties, not by resorting to military action against these groups which have turned to violence in our country, but by putting in place structures and institutions to help people resolve problems and get involved in the dispute-resolution process. We are here to reassure you that we are on the right track. We are on course to institute a modern, pluralistic democracy, because when we took up arms, albeit reluctantly, in 1954 to throw off the yoke of colonialism, we stood firm, and this guided our actions for seven and half years, that our goal was to build a democratic and social Republic of Algeria.
Quite possibly, somewhere along the way, we lost sight of our commitment. We failed to place enough emphasis on democracy, but that discussion is for another day. We are making adjustments. We are working diligently, with a firm sense of conviction, to build this modern society. We want ours to be a model for Africa and the world.
Take Algiers, for example. When I speak to my French friends, I always tell them to compare Paris and Algiers. Despite the difference in population and lifestyle, Algiers has five times the number of daily newspapers than Paris. This is just one indication of how democracy is making strides and literally exploding in our country and that is primarily what we wanted to share with you today.
We will continue to nurture existing ties. We want to encourage our Canadian friends to visit our country, to see firsthand the efforts we are making to rebuild our country and get it back on track. As I told the prime minister and others, we are facing major problems, both economically and socially. We are aware of these problems and we are prepared to confront them head on, just as we deal with incidents of violence.
Ours is a young country. Who better than Canada to understand the struggles of a fledgling nation? Algeria is grappling with entirely new situations. Consider this: Algerians in 1998 have very different hopes and aspirations than Algerians did in 1954 back when we first waged our war of liberation. Let me share with you this telling statistic. In 1962, when the French left, only nine per cent of the population was literate. There was only one university in Algiers. There were fewer than one million French in Algeria, compared to 8.5 million Algerians. In this one university, 3,000 students were French, while only 500 were Algerian. Today, we have 20 universities. We are building one school or thereabouts each day. Great strides are being made to eliminate illiteracy and it is clear that Algerians today have changed considerably. We must meet the demands of our times. Basically, I want you to understand that.
I am afraid that I have monopolized the discussion, but if you have any questions about the situation in our country, we would be more than happy to enlighten you and to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Joyal: Mr. President of the Council of the Nation, I am the youngest senator seated at this table, and when I was a student in the early 1960s at the University of Montreal, I supported Algeria's independence movement. In 1982, when I became a minister in the Canadian government, one of my first duties was to travel to Algeria to sign a cooperation agreement with the then Minister of Education and Scientific Research. The purpose of the exercise was to strengthen exchanges between the two countries and to promote Algerian expertise and the availability of Canadian resources.
I have to admit that when we learned about the problems in your country, we were all deeply saddened to see that so much effort and so many resources had been wasted, particularly when your country has such tremendous potential and such a promising future.
I recall that back then, many Canadian companies operated in Algiers. Five days was not nearly enough time for me to visit each and everyone of them to meet with workers and forge ties between Canadian representatives and Algerian engineers and architects.
Our sole objective is to find a way to rediscover the ties that we nurtured in the early 1980s with such hope and conviction. Believe me when I say that all of my colleagues here today, those from Quebec and as well as from the other provinces -- I am thinking about my colleague Senator Corbin from New Brunswick -- are very much aware of what is going on and can identify with what you have said.
You seem to place considerable emphasis on economic matters. As you yourself stated so eloquently, the economy is not the only area in which we seek to explore and develop some common ground. We are also greatly interested in the following: developing closer interpersonal relations, promoting institutional exchanges, developing joint research projects, twinning Canadian and Algerian universities, the same universities you referred to earlier, and bringing Canadian and Algerian government agencies closer together to share their technology and expertise.
We are fully confident that Algerian authorities have embraced democracy. It is ultimately the hardest, but the safest choice they can make. Your country's brief history, like ours, shows that allowing the people to express their will freely is the best guarantee of freedom and human dignity. That has proven to be true down through the ages. If we can assist you in any way in your quest to see democracy flourish in Algeria, then rest assured you can count on our staunch support.
The delegates accompanying you have a duty to report back to their colleagues on the Council of the Nation and to your country's democratic authorities that Canadians are very open and willing to share with you the challenges of democracy and that they assign a great priority to bringing our respective democratic and academic institutions closer together.
Men and women are free when they are allowed to think freely. In my view, that is the best way to establish a basis of agreement. Believe me when I say that if there is a Canadian parliamentarian who was able to see firsthand the efforts that have been made and continue to be made in Algeria, I am that person. I can assure you that others have noted the progress made as well. All of my colleagues share my opinions on the subject.
[English]
The Chairman: I will say a word about Senator Bolduc, from Quebec. Before Senator Bolduc ascended to the Senate he was the principal public servant in that great province.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests from Algeria, I have not had the pleasure of visiting your country. I have been to Tunisia, but I think I have some idea of what your country must be like, since a number of my Canadian friends have done business with you.
Canada cast off colonialism in two stages. First, we were a French colony, during the era of the Imperial wars, and ultimately, 200 years ago, the British emerged victorious. Canada then became a British colony and slowly, a constitutional revolution unfolded. French Canadians and English Canadians have known some rather trying times. We have benefited considerably from British parliamentary institutions, but we have also contributed something to the British system of government. It is important to remember that.
For example, in 1832, our institutions were already operating according to democratic principles, whereas in Great Britain, the system continued to the highly aristocratic and focused on the monarchy. Our system of government evolved and we overcame our problems. Today, Canada is a country that is rated rather highly, judging from the UN reports.
We have remained on very good terms with England, the last Imperial power to govern Canada. We have much in common with the British. Their incredible civilization has influenced many aspects of our life. Admittedly, we have also been influenced to some degree by the French, but less so than by the British.
I was wondering if you have overcome your problems with France and if your relations are such that you continue to work with them? Or do you feel it is important to have a counterpoint in America? Could you share with us your views on the subject?
Mr. Boumaza: You have asked a good question. Interestingly enough, all observers noted that as soon as the cease-fire came into effect, Algerians left the war behind. According to their political teachings, the enemy was not France, but rather colonialism, a corruption of the great Republican ideas championed in 1789.
Ever since World War I, Algerians have emigrated in large numbers to France and goods and people have always flowed between the two countries. Our relations with France today are not bad. They are not as good as we would like them to be, however. It would seem that France continues to view our country as some kind of colony. We believe that it is impossible to build the future by constantly looking to the past. France is an important partner of ours. However, I think it needs to mentally adjust its way of thinking so that we can continue to work together as equals.
How would I qualify our relations with France? Well, they are not bad, but they are not what they should be either, given the possibilities. However, we harbour no bitter feelings. When we look back on our history, on the years of colonialism and the numerous massacres that occurred, it is not France that we hold responsible, but rather colonialism.
However, the French are somewhat sensitive about this point. They do not like to be criticized. They welcome praise, but not criticism. What more can I say. We still view France as a trading partner, of course, but a partner with whom we deal as equals. We are an independent nation, and we want to be treated as such.
[English]
The Chairman: Senator Corbin is from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, members of the delegation, it would come as no surprise to you, I am certain, if I were to tell you that most Canadians have a somewhat mistaken impression of Algeria. It is an impression conveyed by the media and by television, among others. The media have always focused on violent uprisings. We Canadians see innocent persons who are the victims of inexplicable events. If I understand correctly, some of you have been personally touched by these events. We are not unaware of the tension that prevails in your country. However, we want some assurances, given that some members of the media have accused the government of being lax and the armed forces of not doing enough to combat the terrorism that is ripping your country apart.
What measures have you taken to combat this wave of terrorism? What assurances can you give us that you are handling the situation?
Mr. Boumaza: For several months now, we have been trying to counter this media campaign which has distorted the true situation in Algeria. We have provided explanations on a number of occasions and demonstrated that Algeria is not an inward- looking country. We have supplied reporters and visitors with figures. We have also said that we are prepared to welcome people, not people who would come and tell us what to do, but rather people who are concerned and wish to know the true state of affairs in our country.
I can also tell you that in the coming days, the Human Rights Commission is meeting in Geneva and we are hoping for some results. May I mention in passing that Algeria subscribes to the principles championed by all international human rights organizations. Algeria is a member of all such institutions. It has taken on the responsibility of accounting for its actions and for answering questions raised by institution members. However, Algeria does not accept being held up for scrutiny by one of these organizations, particularly when they have shown themselves to be far from impartial about events in our country.
Our conviction is deep seated. Given the type of struggle that we are waging with these groups in our country, excesses may occur. However, I can assure you that we do crack down when cases of excess are reported to us. Each time the media has reported certain things, we have responded and shown that the reports did not quite jibe with the facts. We have denounced the witch hunts against us and we will continue to do so. How? By welcoming our real, well-intentioned friends so that they can see for themselves what is going on in our country.
Napoleon once said that geography dictates a country's politics. In view of Algeria's geography and size and given the movement that we are contending with, it is extremely difficult to resolve our problems as quickly as we would have liked to. As many people have said, we do not have a traditional career army like many other countries do. Our army has remained very close to the people. We have a number of traditions born of our war of liberation. It is truly an insult to us when people believe our army capable of the types of actions suggested. I will not deny or confirm that there have been excesses during this struggle that we are waging against these different factions. However, I can tell you that any and all excesses are heavily sanctioned.
We are convinced that by building democratic institutions, we will put an end to the conflict. Democratic institutions cannot ignore human rights and freedoms. How can we make the people embrace these institutions and the principles they uphold and support a model for society which is not that of the supporters of fundamentalism, if we allow this situation to continue?
It is truly difficult to react to a movement born of malicious intent. All I can say is that Algeria is an open country. We willingly provide figures to the hundreds of journalists who visit our country as well as to other visitors. People are accusing us based on assumptions, not facts.
For example, we were given a list containing the names of 30 people who had disappeared. We drew up a report proving that only one person on the list had really disappeared. We turned the list over to the human rights commission at the United Nations. We were able to account for 29 of the individuals listed, but not for the 30th person. How did that person come to be missing? Given the state of confusion in some regions, unless we insist on investigating the matter, that is a difficult question to answer. However, that too is reality. We have a human rights monitoring agency, we have institutions in place and we are determined to erase this blight on our human rights record.
I have brought along several books which date back to our national war of liberation. One such book, La Gangrène, which I authored, reports on the torture that I suffered at the hands of the French army. Do you actually think that those who experienced this torture, and there are many of us, could become torturers themselves? This is absolutely unthinkable to Algerians. In any case, Algeria will surprise you. It will surprise its friends at the United Nations and at the human rights commission by the fairness of the stand it has taken. I expect that some very interesting initiatives will be forthcoming.
[English]
The Chairman: I have mentioned three of my colleagues from the Senate. I now want to mention some others in order that you can appreciate the great diversity of this country. We have Senator Grafstein, Senator Andreychuk -- those are not British names -- Senator Di Nino, and Senator Prud'homme. We have a guest this afternoon from the House of Commons, Ms Helene Hilary.
One of my colleagues, Senator Stollery, was in Algeria when you were fighting for your liberation. He could not be here this afternoon, however he asked me to convey his good wishes and all best wishes for the future.
Are there any other questions honourable senators wish to raise?
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: I have many fond memories of Algeria, going back to the days long ago when I marched through the streets with René Lévesque demanding the liberation of your country.
My question will be brief, but I will preface it a little. I too attended the first Congress of the National Palestine Council, and represented Mr. Trudeau at the funeral of Mr. Boumédiène. I also presided over the election of the first executive of the Canada-Algeria Parliamentary Group, which is co-chaired by Mrs. Alarie. I knew all of your predecessor's and your hard-working ambassador, and let me say this to your parliamentary delegation, his experience dealing with difficult issues has been extremely beneficial to Algeria.
I have a question which people have told me I should never ask, but I would not be true to myself if I did not ask it. I have always been puzzled by this. Would we be where we are today had the FIS not been ahead in the first election, or if the universe had unfolded as it should have? Could you attempt an answer to this question? Also, could you tell us what you hope to accomplish? We want to help, but like you, we are troubled by the events taking place. We are not the kind to take advantage of the problems our friends are having and to complicate their lives. Therefore, you have a responsibility to keep us informed. First, however, I would like you to venture an answer to this difficult question, one that is important to me.
Mr. Boumaza: I wish I had the time to explain things thoroughly to you. I wish I could convince you. I, on the other hand, am absolutely convinced that if things had unfolded otherwise, today our country would resemble another Afghanistan. We must not confuse democracy and ultra democracy. Remember that Hitler and other world leaders were elected. Salazar came to power as a result of a fully democratic process. He left under conditions that you are well aware of.
At some point in time, we decided to shoulder our responsibilities and put an end to a democratic process that came about as a result of conditions that were anti-democratic. If you analyze closely the results of the 1990 elections, you will note two things. It would take me some time to explain all of this to you. Over 50 per cent of the electorate did not take part in the elections, either because they were dissatisfied with a particular party and its policies or because they felt the government had remained in power too long. A party of the people, the Islamic party, gained prominence and promised voters the sun and the moon. The 50 per cent of the electorate dissatisfied with politics did not shift its support to this party.
Secondly, if you look at the elections act in force at the time, you will see that it took 20,000 voters to elect one FIS member. However, it took hundreds of thousands of voters to elect one government member. History will explain how this type of legislation favoring the FIS was enacted.
Thirdly, and this is an important consideration, there is no way of knowing for certain that the people would have embraced the policies of the FIS if we had allowed the democratic process to play out and the FIS to come to power. One must remember that the trouble had begun well before the elections. An internal struggle was taking place within this movement and some maintained that the elections were merely a ploy. Had they been democratically elected, other FIS party members would have protested this victory. This is clear today, given the number of factions and subgroups, each of which has its very own kind of Islamic Republic in mind. We are fundamentally opposed to this kind of Islamic Republic which would mix religion and politics because we can see the results each time that happens in the world today.
I will have the pleasure this evening of conversing in private with you and I hope to be able to convince you that putting a stop to this "democratic process" was in the best interests of Algeria. Had we done otherwise, we would be part of an explosive cocktail today, along with Afghanistan, the Sudan and the former Lebanon. I am absolutely convinced of that. Today, fundamentalists have freely joined our institutions. Personally, I am monitoring the situation closely. I am paying careful attention to those who are preaching the revolution and I am wondering if they will truly respect democracy. In any event, my duty is to convince them to embrace democracy and opt for a system of government similar to the Christian Democrats in Italy or in France. Why could we not have a Muslim democracy? However, it is very important that we also participate in this process, even though we do not share the convictions of fundamentalists. We are, nevertheless, attuned to this reality.
The struggle in Algeria is not a struggle between Islam and atheism, but rather between two readings of Islam. As a veteran of the war of liberation, I can say to you that during seven and a half years of armed conflict, not one single priest was assassinated by the national liberation army, or one single rabbi. We were not fighting against Algeria's Christians or Jews, but fighting to liberate our country. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, assassinate anyone in the name of Islam. They sully the name of Islam and I say to our Muslim friends that we are the true defenders of Islam.
Just as people on the American continent struggled to come to grips with the fact that the Soviet Union was dead, we continue to oppose the spectre of Islam and the struggle between civilizations. Members of these factions are working to build a nation that is not true to Islamic principles. Our Islam is universal and national and founded on humanistic principles.
Therefore, I hope we will have an opportunity later on to discuss this matter. I convinced that we should not have held elections. I maintain that we should have postponed them by a year or two, as our Constitution allowed us to do. But we fell into a trap and were forced to react quickly to prevent a civil war from erupting.
Senator Prud'homme: I hope you understand that I had to ask you that question to get your views on the record. My question was one that many people were silently asking themselves. Your response was very shrewd indeed.
Mr. Boumaza: Actually, you have done me a favour. I did not consider your question provocative in the least. I said that we were open to all questions. Yours did not provoke me, quite the contrary, in fact.
[English]
Senator Grafstein: As the speaker said, we have gained an insight, unfortunately mostly through the eyes of media. We welcome the initiative taken by the Honourable Don Boudria and others to visit and report firsthand what happened in Algeria, and we are thankful for it.
I was very taken by your last comments, because they echoed the words of a great hero of mine and of liberalism, an Algerian, Albert Camus. Very often in our speeches in the Senate you will hear his words and ideas debated to this day. For us, the idea of Algeria as a liberal, universal, and democratic society is very welcome.
I was taken by a statement made by Don Boudria when he visited Algeria in March, 1998. I am interested in this question; perhaps you might give me some insight into this. He said: "The difficult transformation process from a planned economy to a market economy creates strong tensions and calls for partnerships with friendly countries."
Can you tell us the current thinking with respect to moving Algeria from the planned economy that it has had from the time of the revolution to the present? Is there a definite process of moving towards a market economy?
[Translation]
Mr. Boumaza: We are trying to do away with a number of words such as ideology and revolution which can create ambiguity. In our country, we rely a great deal on formulas. For 25 years, we proceeded to nationalize property and denationalize people. I propose that we give people back their nationality, and when that happens, the rest becomes immaterial. The important thing is for people to become civic-minded. If there is one thing that must be nationalized, then it must be the state. Such a move would be to the state's benefit. It would not depend on any one party or group, but would become a state for all Algerians. Could such a state convey our belief that individual freedoms are possible only when total freedom prevails, including the right to own property and the freedom to act? That is my formula for Algeria. My country will be a social democracy, or failing that...
By freedom, I do not mean the freedom of the wealthy to put down the poor, or of the strong to crush the weak. I mean the freedom of people to organize. I mean the social pact between men and women. That too is important. When we talk about freedom, we look to the kind of liberalism displayed here in Canada or in Switzerland when an investment project is being proposed. The primary consideration is not the benefits to be derived from this investment, but rather the number of jobs the project will create. The ultimate objective is to resolve social problems.
A century which saw one system of government displace another and dominate is coming to a close. We must draw a lesson from the failure of socialism and put power in the hands of new people. The revolution of 1917 was caused by serious past injustices. We cannot separate justice and solidarity from this notion of democracy. Freedom and justice are important components of building a new world.
Our primary consideration is developing a new breed of Algerians. Algeria's existing wealth is no guarantee of its future. The quality of the Algerian people will dictate the country's future, independent of the kind of government and how Algerians choose to organize themselves. These are the major ideas which guide our actions. Perhaps we have made some mistakes, but we did so with considerable generosity of spirit. Our goal is to make our country a modern nation, albeit one that values its heritage. We want people to re-discover their heritage, but at the same time, to open themselves up to the world around them. That is the overall direction of our policies.
[English]
The Chairman: We had a short but fruitful meeting. I think it has been the prelude to a long and prosperous relationship in the Canada-Algeria parliamentary group. I am sure that members of the Senate will have a chance to meet with members of your group again and again. Thank you for coming; it has been a great pleasure to have had you here.
[Translation]
Mr. Boumaza: I hope to see you again as well. I have conveyed an invitation to the Speaker of the Senate to visit Algeria along with a Senate delegation. We would be very happy to welcome you to our country. Such a visit would be as important, if not more important, than any monetary investment you could make in Algeria.
[English]
The Chairman: You are most gracious, thank you.
The committee adjourned.