Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 20 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 2, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 4:08 p.m. to examine the development and security challenges facing Africa; the response of the international community to enhance that continent's development and political stability; and Canadian foreign policy as it relates to Africa.
Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to this meeting of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, the first public meeting this fall on Africa. This is the first substantial meeting with witnesses since members of the committee returned from Africa.
[Translation]
Today's meeting will be divided into two parts. First, we will be hearing from officials from the Canadian International Development Agency, and our second witnesses will be officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
We invited these two departments to appear today in order to help us better understand certain issues which came to light during our recent fact-finding mission in Africa.
[English]
I am pleased to introduce our four witnesses from the Africa Branch of the Canadian International Development Agency: Barbara Brown, Director General, West and Central Africa; Michel Lemelin, Director General, East, the Horn and Southern Africa; Ellen Wright, Manager, Governance, Security and Communication Unit, Canada Fund for Africa Secretariat; and Isabelle Bérard, Acting Director, Policy, Strategic Planning and Technical Services Africa Branch.
As the purpose is for the members to ask questions relating to our own observations in Africa, the witnesses have not been asked to make a statement.
Senator Di Nino: This is a very complex and interesting undertaking of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate.
We have just come back from two weeks visiting Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Mali. Everything we had heard was confirmed. We had some successes. We had some positive experiences, but based on what we saw and heard from witnesses before and certainly during our trip, I think the world's approach to assistance to Africa has failed. We call it 40 to 50 years of failure. It is not because we wanted to fail, but there has been frustration on the part of the world as well as the African countries receiving our aid. My comments are based on things that we heard, including comments from people at the African Union, who obviously represent a lot more than the four countries we visited. I have a number of economic-related questions.
We have been giving aid — some is pity aid, some is conscience aid — but we have not addressed the issue of creating jobs, of opportunities in the economic field that would help to seed or kick off some opportunities for the economic development that would create some jobs.
I throw that out as a first question to see if someone might comment and please tell me if you feel I am wrong.
Barbara Brown, Director General, West and Central Africa, Canadian International Development Agency: I am going to take a really broad shot at answering. First, for those of us who have worked on Africa for many years, we welcome your interest. It can not have been easy to travel through Africa in the last couple of weeks, and for those who travelled there 40 years ago, as some of you did around the table, it is not always easy to go back.
There have been, particularly in the last 20 years, a lot of conflicts in Africa and in many areas, like the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is a pretty desperate situation compared to what it was 40 or even 10 years ago.
Having said that, yes, our aid has not always hit the nail on the head. There is no question about that. There are some interesting successes. One in particular, because I represent West Africa, that I think Canadians can be very proud of — and of course we are only one small actor amongst many — is the work of our cooperatives and credit unions in West Africa. Through Desjardins International we have been involved in building credit unions, credit union networks, and now in the next stage, links amongst networks in different west African countries. For West Africa, that had a direct impact — maybe not on jobs — but on revenue generation for the very poorest. Credit unions start with very, very small amounts of money. They touch disadvantaged groups, women and small enterprises. They touch rural areas. In terms of us feeling discouraged about what cooperation has done, this is an important success story. That does not mean there are credit unions all over West Africa. That does not mean it has been easy work. If we talk about immediate economic benefits to some very disadvantaged people, the work that we have done both through the Canadian Co-operative Association and Développement international Desjardins has been really important for economics in West Africa.
Mr. Lemelin, are there similar examples in East Africa?
[Translation]
Michel Lemelin, Director General, East, the Horn and Southern Africa, Canadian International Development Agency: Mr. Chairman, I would like to approach the issue from another angle. If we look at the intervention sectors that have been the focus of aid or international development over the past 20 years, perhaps too much attention has been paid to social sectors such as education and health.
And the microeconomic level, where we massively attempted to develop very small business and private small-scale means of subsistence, is not where jobs are created in the modern sense of the word. This is not what builds modern industries and modern intervention sectors. It does generate activity. In the health and education sectors, we trained teachers and health workers. We hope that they will stay in Africa rather than emigrate to developed countries.
There may be a link between the fact that we were so interested in social sectors, where the characteristics of poverty were more evident, and the industrial sectors. We did not manage to work on developing the modern private sector. Perhaps because we have not focused on that yet. So much attention was paid to the poorest countries, where we try to concentrate on helping people get out of misery and poverty, that we may have neglected to build up industry.
But there is hope, there is room to do more.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: This is certainly not meant as criticism. I would appreciate it if you do not take it that way. It is not just Canada; the world has been doing similar things to what we have been doing. Obviously, the kinds of results we were looking for, at least from my standpoint, have not been achieved. Poverty still exists. About 40 years ago, Africa was self-sufficient in food; now they must import food. There are a great many things that could and should be done, particularly in the area of farm subsidies, which make it cheaper for some African countries to import food rather than grow it themselves, because of the subsidies given to farmers in Europe, North America and other parts of the world.
The frustration is that after so many years, we should see a great deal more. In Mali, we heard the statistic that about 48.3 per cent of the population is under 15 years old. They expect their population to grow by leaps and bounds. We were told that is not much different than everywhere else in most countries in Africa.
That is an incredible statistic if one looks at the mouths to feed, the people to clothe and the people to house. I do not think the model we have had so far has worked. Please correct me. You were there 40 years ago, Ms. Brown, and certainly you have a better understanding of the issues and what makes it tick. What should we do? How should we change our focus so that we are not talking the same way 40 years from now?
Ms. Brown: You have touched on trade issues, so you are moving beyond our area. However, if we stay with international cooperation, first we must remember that it is a very tiny part of the picture. Your point is well taken. We can do a lot more with trade issues than we can with cooperation. We must accept that.
We donors — and I am talking about all the donors and not just Canada — must work better together. There is no question about that. The buzzword of the moment is harmonization. Recently in Rome and in Paris donors at the highest levels agreed to harmonize their approaches and work together so we do not have the Americans doing something that may not link well with what the Canadians and the Germans are doing, et cetera. That is essential. We are starting down that road, which is important for us in terms of cooperation.
A major change in the last 10 years was the innovation that Mr. Wolfson brought into the World Bank whereby he had the bank working with African countries and other countries around the world to develop poverty reduction strategies and to weave all our cooperation around a good strategy for reducing poverty. It touches on social and economic issues. That strategy must be developed by the country itself so that, as development donors, we contribute to a plan that originates in the country itself and a plan that belongs to the country and which is theirs. That is another important innovation.
We have started in a very concerted way over the last two or three years, particularly in Africa, to say that we will invest in your 10-year education program or your 10-year health problem. We have started what we call budget support. There are a lot of questions about this. People ask, ``Why are we doing that?'' I say, ``Because for us at the moment, as donors, it is the best option.'' We work with governments. We say, what will you do with those 48 per cent of young people? They have to get a decent education. We have to make sure that they do. Look at their plan and invest in their plan so it is not our plan, it is their plan. We are working alongside them. When they say, ``We need help planning better curricula or better school books,'' we can provide that assistance.
Those are three important things. Donors need to work together. We need to continue to work on the poverty reduction strategy process, and we need to be investing in the plans of the government of Mali to deal with those issues, and not coming in with our own ideas and plans.
[Translation]
Isabelle Bérard, Acting Director, Policy, Strategic Planning and Technical Services, Canadian International Development Agency: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the replies given to Senator Di Nino's two questions. To the question of whether we have failed in our task in Africa, I would be tempted to say that we have learned. There have, after all, been 40 years of development, and development is, in a nutshell, a long and complex process.
In the course of the past few years, we have certainly learned from our experiences. Over the past ten years, the international community has really rallied around a certain number of concepts such as developing poverty reduction strategies, and the need to harmonize our interventions. I think that is very important.
Canada has also made headway, to the extent that it has increasingly targeted its interventions, either at the sectoral level or geographically. This was not the situation 40 years ago in the development world. We were rather scattered, sectorally or geographically. We are now working to rectify that situation in the light of the lessons we have learned in the course of the past few years.
I would like to add the concentration factor to those that Barbara raised. I would also like to emphasize that our new international policy statement focuses on the private sector. We currently recognize the importance of placing particular emphasis on that sector.
We have learned during the past few years, and the development of the private sector now stands out clearly and prominently in our international policy statement. This international policy statement is interesting in that it in fact covers several sectors, not only the development aspect of Canada's intervention abroad, but also trade interventions for foreign affairs.
We need to have complementary tools in order to ensure that things get done and that the work is consistent and worthwhile.
[English]
The Chairman: Before calling on Senator Segal and Senator Andreychuk, I would like to make an observation.
I agree with the view that, in terms of economic progress, it has been a fiasco. In Ethiopia, the average annual income, if there are any real statistics, is less now than it was in the 1960s. I don't see how anybody can call that a great success economically, in terms of people's standard of living.
On the other hand, I noticed something that, perhaps, other people would not have noticed.
I only counted two cases of trachoma and normally I would see thousands of people with the disease. I am used to having these victims all around me. Trachoma is the eye problem with the flies.
I did not see a single case of elephantiasis and, again, I thought nothing of it. I have seen hundreds of people with this disease; however, I did not see one.
Leprosy was very common. I have sat on buses with 10 lepers. I never would think about it. Actually, I did come across this.
I am prepared to say that there has been some progress in the health area. I was in Ethiopia in 1959 or 1960, and elephantiasis was everywhere. The committee was very impressed by the quality of some of the African experts we met in Ethiopia. They were very smart, well trained, well educated and well able to manage things. For example, I think of the head of the military committee for the African Union. There were all kinds of very able people. This is something I certainly would not have seen in 1959 or 1960.
Many of the wounds have been self-inflicted. We spoke with the senior Ethiopian agronomist in another country in charge of a large program who said there were 3,300 highly trained agronomists in Ethiopia. There are universities in the United States where the head of the department of agronomy is an Ethiopian.
When the Marxist regime was imposed, they left the country. We are saying, ``What are we doing sending agronomists to Ethiopia when there are many people already there who can do the job?''
The committee went to Tigray. Everyone who has ever been in a semi-desert country knows that it only rains intermittently and you go to a dried-out river bed and dig a hole. If there is water, this is usually where it will be. The Ethiopians have been doing this for 1,500 years.
They dig big holes and line them with stones. There were 3,000 of them in the area we visited. They had this pump. They used to use the Archimedes' screw. It certainly dates back to ancient Egyptian times. The Archimedes' screw is still used and works pretty well. The committee had a look at this new pump.
One of the chief economists at the UN Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa was critical of these projects and wanted everyone to fill in a report about them. The project looks as though it may cost $75. It will probably cost $300 just to fill in the reports. No one would wish ill of these people who need the water. It seems to me that they are perfectly able to do this work themselves. They have been doing it since time immemorial.
This seemed to be our aid program and you look at it and say, ``After 45 years, is this it?'' Is this person stepping on a $50 thing that I could have bought? For that there has to be a report. The economist was very bright, very critical of these practices, including the head of the African Union, Alpha Oumar Konaré.
[Translation]
He was saying the same thing: What is this? It cannot work. That is what he said.
[English]
What about trying to raise the standard of living? It is important that people do not have trachoma or elephantiasis or leprosy. These are important achievements. I can not say it is not there, but I did not see it. If I went into the hills, I would probably see it.
I am agreeing with what Senator Di Nino said. Ethiopia was an exporter of food in 1960. In some instances, it is worse off than it was 45 years ago. Where has this all gone?
[Translation]
Ms. Bérard: Your statement and your observations are correct. In fact, you are touching the heart of an essential and fundamental issue, that of the accountability of a government to its own constituents versus a government's accountability to a community or an elite within a country which almost becomes accountable to the donors. Over 40 years, we gradually realized, particularly in countries that were significantly dependent on aid, and in Africa there are several of these countries, that there was this type of sea change whereby populations and governments became more and more accountable to donors and to the international community rather than to their own population. The result is that we have distracted them from their fundamental duty which is to meet the needs of their population. This is what we have learned over the past few years.
In fact, in Ethiopia, where you were, I don't know whether people quoted certain studies made on the number of missions in that country in a specific calendar year. It is hard not to quote myself, and with everyone listening and writing it will be complicated, but if memory serves, I know that for one specific year we studied the number of missions to Ethiopia. We identified over 2,500 missions, which required the time of officials and parliamentarians. You can see that all of it becomes impossible to manage and very difficult.
Over the course of the years, this evolution lead to distraction. I would like to get back to a comment made by my colleague. This is what led us in the direction of budget support. Over the past few years, donors have increasingly gone in that direction, and this is where we have been concerting our collective efforts. With the government we want to turn the accountability situation around, so that the governments will become accountable to their population and so that we reduce the burden of demands, visits, et cetera.
I would like to use an analogy which is not perfect but which refers to our transfer payments to provinces. If, when we make transfer payments to provinces, we were to ask provincial governments to make reports and if we imposed endless conditions, provincial governments would eventually wind up becoming accountable to the federal government and would answer only to that government.
But, basically, the provincial transfer payment system is a bit different and provides some flexibility and allows provinces some leeway.
The principle of budget support is somewhat similar to that. The analogy may not be perfect, but this is to some extent the spirit in which donors are now working, that is to say to ensure that governments become responsible to their constituents and that finally we not distract them from their commitments to their populations. I think that you have raised a fundamental and very important issue, and that is an interesting observation. It was fortunate that you met this economist who gave you food for thought on this issue.
Mr. Lemelin: Another aspect of the same question is the distinction we now make between a project approach and a program approach. In the past, it is true, and this is to some extent the legacy of the first approaches to development, NGOs, religious communities and others would create schools and universities; now, rather than acting locally in this way, we analyze all of the dimensions of an issue with all of the stakeholders in a given sector.
Let us take, for instance, agriculture and food security in Ethiopia. Clearly, if we look at the issues surrounding famine and think in terms of food aid, we will provide food, we will try to feed people during the duration of the famine and each year we will start all over again.
If we approach the problem from the angle of improving agricultural production and food production, if we think in terms of transformation, marketing, market access, if we think in terms of a production chain, as you saw in Mali for cotton and onions, that is a whole other perspective.
In the context of discussions at the international level, to improve the effectiveness of aid, this is the current thinking: we must absolutely let the countries take the lead in strategy. They must themselves define what they want to do in a particular sector; we have to have extensive discussions with the donors, and at a certain point agree on an action plan. This action plan is then budgetized and it is at that point that we provide budget support. Budget support does not mean giving a government money so that it can do whatever it likes; it means funding a clearly defined plan, with specific measures and indicators, with follow-up measures in place and assessments carried out along the way. Payments are then conditional on a certain progress in the area concerned.
In this way, we hope to be able to avoid looking at a problem in too narrow a way. It may be important to help a few villages produce tomatoes, but if, after one or two seasons, they produce tomatoes that go rotten because there is no market for them, this is pointless. So we really have to integrate our action into a broader perspective.
The other aspect of Canadian cooperation, just like French or British cooperation, is that it cannot on its own deal with the scope of these problems and make a relevant difference. If everyone works together, priorities are set for the actions to be taken, and together, we can finance a whole project.
This implies leadership on the part of the country, ownership on the part of the country; this implies that we harmonize our policies as much as they theirs, and that our trade policies do not undo what we are doing on the development side — that is the whole issue of discussions around subsidies in the agricultural area. The Doha discussion is very much a part of this picture. This allows us to look at things from a program angle rather than as a series of projects. This does not mean that small-scale, discreet interventions cannot be made here and there, but all of our cooperation should be much more comprehensive.
This is why CIDA will be supporting countries and why 75 to 80 per cent of our program could be allocated to budget support. But as I said earlier, there will be programs, action plans and follow-up to assess the results.
[English]
Senator Segal: As I joined the committee only yesterday, I did not have the opportunity to participate in the huge physical and intellectual undertaking that my colleagues did in their remarkable trip through a large part of Africa. I am respectful of the coal-face perception they bring to this discussion that I can not.
It would be most helpful if our guests would reflect on two parts of the narrative. We hear much about corruption. I am not one who thinks we should be applying a double standard to our African friends, or that we should be applying standards to them that would not have existed at similar points in our democratic development 80, 100 or 150 years ago, relative to the process.
I think the ODA and other rules and guidelines are clear about the issue of receptivity, and the absorbability of aid and investment. I would be interested in your judgment as to where we are on the absorbability front with the notion that the majority of the dedicated funds end up where they are intended to as opposed to Swiss bank accounts or whatever the narrative suggests.
My supplementary question touches upon a very active and constructive debate within CIDA, which is a good thing, around the relevance, role and importance of democratization. In that context, I think of democratization not only as, for example, the ability to choose one's own government — one can look at Zimbabwe, for instance, and realize that there are some pieces missing in that particular execution — but also in the context of human rights and the rule of law.
As senior officials who direct investment, in a sense, cooperatively with other donors on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer and in support of legitimate development goals for our fellow human beings in Africa, I am interested in your perspective on those two premises. From the point of view of Canada, what change might we be able to consider? What fresh approach to policy might be constructive around this table that would assist you and your colleagues in the work you are trying to do? That is a tall order, but any hints you could give us would be most instructive.
Ms. Brown: First, you will know from the new policy statement that issues of governance, human rights and democracy are one of our priorities. There is absolutely no question about that. One of the big advances in Africa over the last 10 years is that African leaders will now talk about the issue of governance and corruption. They have put in place the African peer review mechanism to NEPAD, which they are starting to go through. I am just back from a trip to Ghana, which was one of the first, if not the first. They have not yet responded to the comments, but the international community can hold their feet to the fire on this. That is helpful. These issues are taken extremely seriously, although that does not mean there are easy answers to them.
Returning to the Ghana example, we have two budget support programs there. The first is in the agriculture sector. We are doing what Mr. Lemelin was talking about, that is, reviewing with them their strategy and plan of action and strengthening the ministry of agriculture. The second budget support program is with a group of eight other donors and involves the general budget.
We are doing that in Ghana because they have had several monitored, democratic elections in which we have assured ourselves that there is a democratic process and governance is well in place. We are doing many things to back ourselves, one being our work with the Government of Ghana to ensure that their financial management systems are strengthened. Their budget is $3 billion, comparable to that of the City of Montreal, and their population is 20 million, so Ghana lacks the resources to provide the services. They do not have provincial governments to provide additional funding for services. It is extremely important for us to ensure that the Government of Ghana reaches that series of indicators and trigger points amongst the donors collectively, and so it is carefully monitored together, not one by one, on a six-month basis. Money is not released until those trigger points are reached.
Inside the Government of Ghana, we set special resources aside to help them build their expenditure management systems. We discovered that because of the lack of resources, the finance ministry only managed the salary budget of the government. They did not have a relationship with their line ministries because all of the program budgets came from donors through these separate projects and programs that you have been talking about. One of the benefits has been that the line ministries are receiving their money through the finance ministry, and we are trying to make that system work better.
I would ask my colleagues to add their comments. Michel Lemelin has some interesting examples about his side of the continent. Concerning changes we would recommend to better communicate the message to Canadians, we talk about the small project, about which we are not enthusiastic, but people who give money for development cooperation relate much better if they are able to see that their $25 improved the pump in village X.
We are struggling with how to communicate that it makes more sense overall to invest in the health care strategy of the Government of Mali than to put one machine in one hospital, which might not be on the list of priorities of the capable Minister of Health for the Government of Mali.
Mr. Lemelin: There were issues about corruption and absorbability. In respect of democratization, we have a good example of how difficult that can be in Africa. Not only is it a matter of introducing a multi-party system and having a few elections but also a matter of anchoring the institutions in such a way that there could be public participation through representation.
Senators have likely read about the protests in Ethiopia where the police have shot many people.
The Chairman: How many people?
Mr. Lemelin: There were 22 people shot today. We thought that Ethiopia was doing well enough because this is their third general election. Throughout the election, things were quite calm but after the results came out, the problems began. There is another aspect. We need to look not only at the national level for democratization but also at the regional and municipal levels.
It takes a long time before this can be solidified in the daily routine. To think that we can change in 10 years a country like Ethiopia, which has had an entirely different political regime and no idea of participation in public affairs, is simply not realistic. What should we do when we realize that governance and democratization do not turn out the way we thought they should? Should we hold our development cooperation and support hostage with their democratization and their progress on that front? It turns into a difficult situation. I do not want to answer that question today because I have had to deal with it too many times in years past. It is always difficult. Should we continue to help these countries with a democratic deficit? It is as bad as an economic deficit, in a way, but we do not stop helping in that case. Should we stop helping them when they have a democratic deficit? I ask that question of senators.
Ellen Wright, Manager, Governance, Security and Communication Unit, Canada Fund for Africa Secretariat, Canadian International Development Agency: I would like to pick up on something Ms. Brown talked about and that is the African peer review mechanism, which is one of the most innovative things developed by the Africans. Under this program, Africans have committed to reviewing each other's governance programs. It is much gutsier than any program to which we would agree. Can you imagine the Americans and Canadians agreeing to review each other's programs and then abiding by the results?
Senator Segal: I do not think one province would agree with another province.
Ms. Wright: Twenty-four countries have signed on and Ghana was the first. Rwanda and Kenya have undertaken reviews. It is interesting to see which countries have and have not signed on. Nigeria has signed on and will undertake a review soon. Being one of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International, it will be interesting to see how Nigeria justifies corruption. A country like Angola has signed on and, having just come out of civil war, will explain its deficit of good governance on that basis. These countries are pretty tough on each other, and we have to give them much credit.
On the parliamentary side, I hope that Senator Andreychuk will address senators at some time on a program of support to parliamentarians in Africa and the creation of a network called the African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption, APNAC. Senator Andreychuk was recently in Senegal on a policy dialogue with 12 African parliamentarians.
Senator Andreychuk: They were from various countries.
Ms. Wright: There were eight Canadians involved in this policy dialogue. The same program responsible for that is responsible for APNAC and there have been results. Senator Di Nino, I understand where you are coming from when you say that it is not working and we are not seeing successes, but we take small successes. For example, as a result of APNAC, a Canadian-instigated program under which we work with African parliamentarians, Uganda has passed an anti-corruption law. The chair of the corruption committee in Uganda is a part of APNAC. We are seeing some definite changes to the laws of Uganda. The successes might be small but they are happening.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: When we had our meeting with Alpha Oumar Konaré, from the African Union — the former President of Mali — he told us that one of the major problems in Africa involved transportation, more precisely transportation within countries and between countries. According to him, this is a serious constraint on further economic development. Does CIDA take part in programs to improve transportation networks in Africa, be it navigation or air transport? We discovered, for instance, that it was sometimes impossible to travel from one country to another because there was no air transport. Small planes have to be chartered. What does CIDA do in this area at the macroeconomic level?
Mr. Lemelin: Several years ago we built a lot of infrastructures. When I began to work for CIDA, I supervised infrastructure projects, but we stopped doing that because of costs. Let us be honest; it costs a fortune and we do not have the means to contribute in a significant way in the construction of roads or other transport links in Africa. Rather, we leave this to the banks or to the private sector.
We are aware that that is important. When we look at the issues in a more global way, the physical communication and telecommunications dimensions are always present, because they are a paramount part of development. It is somewhat unfortunate that we left this sector. Indeed, several of our Canadian businesses probably found this difficult, because we supported several of our engineering firms. Others learned to work in Africa and elsewhere in CIDA projects, and they managed to position themselves very successfully on international markets in order to have access to existing markets.
As for budget support, it must be said that countries have transportation development programs for international links, such as the NEPAD program. The action plan contains a transportation section and our Canadian businesses are quite well positioned to go and get markets in these areas. This is going on, but CIDA is not providing funding.
Ms. Bérard: I would like to add something to Mr. Lemelin's remarks. It is true that from the lateral point of view, we have practically no activity involving infrastructures. However, through our multilateral investments, several things are being done, in cooperation with several other donors, obviously. Moreover, we provide certain sums to the African Development Bank which has specific programs for infrastructures in its programs.
I want to point out that the British, in their report on the African Commission, insisted on infrastructures and created a consortium. Their very first meeting was held in London a few weeks ago. We attended that meeting. The donors decided to meet in order to better coordinate their efforts in this area. The dialogue is leading to certain results.
[English]
The Chairman: I would just like to add that it was never explained to us. We were exposed to so much information. Everyone we met agreed that the Ethiopian famine should not take place. Ethiopia grows plenty of food, and the difficulty is getting it from that part of Ethiopia to Tigray. There is no reason for them to have a famine.
Why was this not dealt with 40 years ago? It is as if the same conversation is taking place that could have taken place in 1962. It was not explained. There are some new roads. Why did they not build the new roads from the area where they are growing the food to the area where they need the food?
Senator Andreychuk: How do you grow a country and make it function? We are still struggling with our own country. I do not think we have it right. We can certainly go to certain areas to look at it.
There was colonization; then in the 1960s, independence came. We propped up leaders, both the East and the West — you just have to understand Somalia and Ethiopia. You could have been in Somalia at one point when it had support from the West. You went back a few months later, and it was support from the East.
Nothing much happened.
We then got a second generation of leaders. The East-West conflict has disappeared. We are talking about 10 to 15 years. The difference I see through Africa on governance, which I think is one of the key issues that could lead to a lot of other things happening, is that we still have a generation of leaders who do not understand. There are leaders that came out at independence who lived through these times that really do not understand what a nation state is about, what their responsibilities are.
Then we got a newer breed of leaders, and we saw optimistic signs. We now see some of those leaders holding on too long and causing the same problems that the first generation of leaders had.
Governance seems to be the issue. How much of our effort is really building the governance structures beyond what I see? We see working with governments, but working with parliaments is going to be the key if those governments are going to be accountable to their people.
There are no double-checks in many of those countries unless you look at the fledgling parliaments. Are we seeing that as part of our education structure? It seems to me that is the key. That is what NEPAD is anchored on even though, unfortunately, no one was consulted. The NEPAD plan was put in by the leaders, and really only about seven of them. Now we are trying to get a grassroots feeling to the NEPAD structure.
Is this really not, after 40 years, the first time that we are really struggling with real governance in Africa? I would like your comments to that.
The Chairman: Nobody is particularly anxious.
Mr. Lemelin: We were conscious of that because we are doing a few things with the Parliamentary Centre and other groups.
There is also something in the plans about Sudan. Through their new constitution and their way of looking at a certain kind of federalism in Sudan, they are interested in hearing more about the Canadian experience in this area. Here and there, we are dealing with these matters.
In Ethiopia, we work with parliamentarians. We were even about to start something if the parliament had reconvened on a full basis but some are just boycotting. Also, we are doing a lot about elections here and there — before, during and after the elections. It is very important. We see governance in a large part as public sector reform. That is also important because, if you do not have competent people to implement the program and who understand the logic and the culture of democratization and working in a modern government, you will go nowhere.
Senator Andreychuk: We have tried elections, we have said multi-party, we are now talking about doing seminars and how they build their committee structures. I believe that is all necessary. However, the key seems to be that when we work in Africa we include accountability in the true sense that we would in Canada. For example, I participated in an IMF conference in Tanzania. For the first time, parliamentarians on the finance committee actually knew what the government was negotiating with IMF. Before that, they said they would receive ``the plan'' in their cubbyholes and were asked to vote for it by two o'clock in the afternoon. We now understand that governance is not just the head of state or the government, but it has to be a real governance structure that has to be impacted. We have put our emphasis on multilateral institutions. Surely we will not get the reforms we want if we do not really build governance in a proper way.
Mr. Lemelin: Governments have not learned to work with parliaments. They are starting to, but in many instances it is a big country such as Malawi.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Di Nino asked the question about these countries being self-sufficient in subsistence agriculture some years back and why that appears not to be the case. That is one we posed when we went to Africa. Is it one you choose not to answer or are struggling with it yourself?
Mr. Lemelin: We have to consider many factors there. There is soil degradation in many areas. It is certainly for some reason. We have seen desertification and erosion.
The Chairman: In Ethiopia, only 13 per cent of arable land is cultivated. Obviously soil degradation has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Mr. Lemelin: I am mentioning one of many factors. As well, there is population growth.
Senator Di Nino: We had heard that it is cheaper to import rather than grow certain products. We have to put on the record that the subsidies farmers get in Europe, particularly in two or three countries, in the U.S. and in Canada are killing some of these folks. Someone brought up the cotton issue. We were in a cotton field with 40 or 50 farmers begging us to send the message out there that not only are we killing them by making cotton so cheap they can not grow it, but the cost of fertilizer has gone up so much they can not afford to buy it.
The Chairman: I agree with you, Senator Di Nino, and I believe we have it on the record. You are right. It has nothing to do with soil degradation. The Congo could feed all of Africa on its own. Ethiopia has only 13 per cent of its arable land cultivated. Nigeria has a huge agricultural potential. Even Mali, which is basically a savannah country, and a semi-desert in the north, has no difficulty.
We have been through that and I think the members of the committee understand. I agree with you, Senator Di Nino, and I believe we all do.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In listening to the comments around the table, one might believe that we have gone back 40 years and that nothing has really borne fruit, although in your replies you tried to provide us with some positive elements.
In order to conclude your testimony on a positive note, could you provide us with reasons or examples that would confirm that we should continue and, especially, not abandon what we are doing in these countries?
The people who are listening to us might believe that this work is not really worthwhile and that we should just disengage.
[English]
Ms. Brown: There are reasons and I can give you examples. However, we can not, as world citizens, abandon a part of the world. That is not just bleeding-heart kindness, it is self-interest. We cannot allow one part of the world to continue to struggle with poverty, HIV, AIDS, et cetera. I do not believe that is an option.
I think that when we put our minds to it, when we really have a broad approach, and when we are willing to face up to what we did not do well and learn from our mistakes and stay in there for the long term, some issues will not get solved in one year or two but some might.
The example that always comes to mind is clean drinking water, which is very important to economic development. People who are sick are not going to be helpful in their jobs and will not be able to support their families. We have seen it here in Canada. None of us can survive without clean drinking water.
Canada has played a major role in the far north of Ghana. We have been there for 25 to 30 years, and in the first five or 10 years we made a ton of mistakes. We had the good old prairie hand pumps. They were not accustomed to having 300 strong African women pump them and they broke. However, we learned our lessons over the years.
When you look at the stats now for northern Ghana, in the isolated part of the country, first, the coverage for that region is much better than in the middle part of Ghana. That is because Canada has been there for 25 years. Second, some major diseases like guinea worm are starting to come back. People are worried because they had been rid of it. That is a major problem as a result of not having good, clean drinking water.
Third, thanks to our long involvement there, Canadian public servants actually contributed to the development of a good community water policy for Ghana whereby people can go in and do small, large or medium-sized community water projects by following certain steps that have been learned through good practices such as consulting the community, getting women on-board, et cetera.
That is one example in one country. We tend to only see the problems that pop up in front of us. There are lots of things that we, as a country and we as a development community, have done to give us hope to go on. We have to go on and we have to keep faith. I really believe that. It is not a choice not to.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I did not in any way want to suggest that we should abandon the battle. I simply want people to understand and I want us to have something concrete to hang on to. Some things have worked well and we have to continue. This is long-term work. But we need something concrete to hang our hopes on.
Ms. Brown: Things have to be explained better. There have been successes, but we did not communicate them well.
Mr. Lemelin: In spite of results that may be disappointing to a certain extent, what would things have been like if we had not done what we did do, collectively?
Senator Robichaud: If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, some witnesses told us that when they began these interventions some 25 or 30 years ago, the people who lived from agricultural production were self-sufficient, while now, this is no longer the case. So, there is a sombre side to this.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We could go on here with questions that have come out of our journey to Africa; however, we do not have any more time.
Our next witnesses are from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I have read your brief, Ms. Siddall. It is very interesting. However, only page seven relates to why we have asked you to come before the committee. We are concerned only about that which involves Africa. You do not have to read your brief, unless senators want you to do so. I know Senators Di Nino and Corbin will have some questions for you. I can tell you what they will be in a nutshell and then Senator Di Nino can pursue them.
Let us take the Congo as an example. We are interested in ministers from African governments who want to come to Canada, in particular parliamentarians. However, let us consider cabinet ministers who make these decisions fairly quickly. They say, as we do here, that they have to go to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Ottawa for a meeting with the such-and-such. We are told that the application has to go to Abidjan and that the timely issuance of visas, or the issuance of visas at all, has become problematic. Here we are trying to deal with Africa in its many aspects, but African leaders have great difficulty coming to Canada because they can not obtain visas.
Is that not the rough idea, Senators Di Nino and Corbin?
Senator Corbin: First, can we take these notes as read and have them printed in today's proceedings?
The Chairman: Yes, to save time, we will take the notes as read. We will have them attached to the minutes of today's meeting.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, you have highlighted the issue that we want to talk about. We have heard from African parliamentarians, in particular cabinet ministers, that they are having a great deal of difficulty obtaining visas to come to Canada. We also heard one statistic that may not be correct. However, it will give you an indication of the concern that was expressed to us. It is that in one country some 80 per cent of student applications are turned down. I believe that was in Nigeria, was it not?
The Chairman: It could be. However, I am not certain.
Senator Di Nino: As part of our final look at this issue, we want to understand it. We would like to have our own people educate and inform us about that question.
Janet Siddall, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: There is no question that the movement of temporary residents out of Africa is problematic for us for a number of reasons. Earlier, I heard your concerns about corruption, as well as previous African regimes that have posed problems because of their human rights records, et cetera.
When it comes to senior officials, of course we want to facilitate the exchange between Canada and these African countries. However, in many instances, there is a screening process we must go through. I wish that my colleagues from the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, were here because they are the lead on Canada's policy on war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In a number of countries, including some you visited, Canada does have concerns about complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, which require us to do rather intensive screening. It is the border agency that screens on our behalf. The policy of the Government of Canada is no safe haven. We have set the bar very high. As you may be aware, it is not blood on your hands; it is reasonable grounds to believe that someone had knowledge of or was complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, including senior members of regimes. In some cases, Canada has designated regimes in Africa that we consider to be brutal regimes. Anyone who was a senior member of that regime was and remains inadmissible to Canada under those provisions of the act.
I am guessing that if you are hearing complaints of delays, this is where they would be. If there are no concerns regarding their admissibility to Canada, then we certainly do expedite. In many of our missions where there is no visa officer present, we have arrangements whereby our colleagues from Foreign Affairs will issue diplomatic visas to those high-level visitors.
We have worked closely with our partners at CBSA and Foreign Affairs to identify as early as possible where a potential visitor to Canada might come within these prohibited sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Where it is identified that it is still in Canada's national interest to allow the visitor forward, we usually require a senior recommendation from Foreign Affairs or the inviting department. We facilitate that person's admission to Canada through an issuance of a temporary resident permit.
I agree with you. I have heard these complaints myself in meetings with the Nigerian High Commissioner and the Rwandan ambassador. They take exception to the fact that Canada has this policy. They feel we should recognize they have turned a corner, that they are on the path to democratic development. They do not understand it. They find it intrusive. They do not like the questions we ask. They do not like the questionnaires we ask them to complete in order that our colleagues at the border agency can do in-depth screening. Nevertheless, that is the position of the Government of Canada.
In our role of doing the first-line screening of visitors to Canada from abroad, we at Citizenship and Immigration Canada must apply those provisions of the act. With advance notice we can get the screening going so that we can give advice early on as to whether there is a potential problem.
I am aware that this has become more than a bilateral irritant in some cases. I speak to my colleagues at Foreign Affairs all the time about it. We are trying our best to educate not only our Canadian colleagues but those governments with whom we are dealing where this is an issue so that they understand the requirements of our immigration legislation. We mitigate it to the best of our ability.
Delays in those cases are a minimum of 10 working days, which is the time needed to complete the screening where there are concerns.
Senator Di Nino: Could you address the issue of students?
Ms. Siddall: The criteria for assessing a student are universal around the world. It has to be a genuine student who will leave Canada after their temporary authorized stay. They must demonstrate they have sufficient funds to cover their course study. They must demonstrate they have sufficient ties to their home country that they will leave Canada after their authorized stay.
There is a great deal of difficulty in the African context of students meeting that criteria. Where students are being admitted to post-secondary programs, bachelor programs, et cetera, the acceptance rates are very high. However, I must tell you that much of our student business out of Africa is generated by consultants. People are applying for different types of courses well below the post-secondary level, and there is a high level of fraud in the movement. The student movement has been targeted by people smugglers and others as a way to access Canada. They are very aware that we are trying to promote and facilitate the admission of students to Canada.
I have to say it is particularly bad out of Nigeria where, as you said, our refusal rates are high.
However, I noted a report that came out of our visa office in Nigeria last year. We do, on a quality assurance basis, review the applications submitted for malfeasance and fraud, and we were getting a 50-per-cent hit rate on fraudulent documents or other types of misrepresentation in the student applications being submitted.
I know you are not suggesting that CIC issue student visas to applicants who are committing fraud or otherwise misrepresenting something. They misrepresent their financial ability to pay for their studies, and they typically misrepresent their academic record.
Senator Di Nino: This hit us without any prior notice, and we were somewhat surprised that we were not briefed on it. It became an issue that we could have dealt with if we had prepared ourselves better. I do not want to blame anyone. The reason for you being here is to give us some reasons as to why this is happening. We obviously thought some things you told us were there, but we want to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Ms. Siddall: I am not sure if my department was invited to brief you prior to today.
Senator Di Nino: No, it was not invited. No blame is being directed at anyone. We did not prepare ourselves well.
Ms. Siddall: There is no question that the visa issues are always being raised with Canadian delegations.
The Chairman: Could you provide us with a comparison of the Canadian position with our competitors in Germany, the United Kingdom and France?
I have studied in Germany, and I had many Nigerian colleagues at the institution and in the U.S. Are we riding on some kind of a horse of our own, or is this something other countries are doing as well?
Ms. Siddall: I can conduct research for you on comparative acceptance rates for Nigerian students as compared to other countries. I know when it comes to post-secondary institutions, our acceptance rates are very high — 75 to 80 per cent.
It is the non-post-secondary students that pose a problem for us and also pose a problem for our colleagues who have fairly significant refusal rates outside of the classic post-secondary student application. I provide that information going back through my memory on briefs I have read in the past.
Some countries have different regimes where they do not even consider student applications below the post- secondary level.
The Chairman: I understand that. Unless we see some figures or information, I have no way of being able to compare. I include the problem with diplomats and ministers and parliamentarians.
Are we unique in applying rules that make it difficult for us to talk to our enemies? What do the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the U.S. do when a Congolese minister wants to visit Washington, London, Paris or Berlin?
Ms. Siddall: On the comparative issue of our position on war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada is the leader and is the strongest and least tolerant country in that respect.
The Chairman: Should we send them to other countries?
Ms. Siddall: In terms of what we have built into our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we have probably set the bar higher than just about anyone else. The way we administer our policies is quite different. Our act covers everyone and, therefore, you have to make the exception to allow someone in if they are determined to be inadmissible.
The U.S. system is quite different; they can apply the exception the other way around. In other words, they choose when they want to deem someone to be inadmissible.
I will research that for you and contact you regarding the comparable legislation related to war crimes and crimes against humanity in the U.K., Germany, France and the U.S.
The Chairman: Those countries would be our competitors for these people. Maybe we are just isolating ourselves.
Senator Andreychuk: We in the Senate studied the post-secondary education system a number of years ago.
One of the difficulties we had when trying to state that we should be more international was this dilemma of the traditional post-secondary institution, such as the computer school in Toronto. It was business-based additional education.
Part of the problem there was we were tackling the accreditation problem. Are these really post-secondary education institutions that should allow you to get a student visa as opposed to something else? Is that part of the problem still or has that been sorted out?
Ms. Siddall: I think we have made some progress but there is provincial jurisdiction in terms of accrediting the educational institutions. It is not part of the immigration legislation, so we rely on working through partnership with the provinces to ensure that we understand what a bona fide institution is and is not.
There is a challenge with private institutions. If I may use the term ``visa schools,'' they exist to a great extent in order to facilitate the movement of foreign students into Canada on student visas. I think that is still a program integrity issue, so that is where we closely examine the intentions of the student.
Are they a genuine student? Does their course of study make sense in terms of their academic background? Do they have the financial means to study in Canada? Are they sufficiently attached to their home country so that they will leave Canada after their stay as a student?
We have the means on the immigration side to examine the integrity of the intentions of the individual. We do not have the means within our own program to determine the integrity of the institution that is issuing acceptance letters.
Clearly for us, if it is a public post-secondary institution, that is a huge comfort zone because we know they are not issuing acceptance letters to unqualified students.
Senator Andreychuk: The Canadian part of the problem is the students themselves.
Part of the problem on student visas, as I recall from my days in the service, was the concept of who would get selected to go. The schools in Canada would have a quota system of how many spaces they still had available. A week or so before school started, they would say, okay, we can take 10 more students in the international program. The embassy would then be in a conundrum of trying to get them through fast.
There was no routine built in early enough to factor in the visa requirement. There would be a telephone call saying they could take 10 more students, but they have to appear by Monday. Is that still happening?
Ms. Siddall: I will turn that over to my colleague, Mr. Gilbert.
Rénald Gilbert, Director, Economic Immigration Policy and Programs, Selection Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: You are right. That has been an issue for a long time, but not as significant as it was a few years ago. I saw a huge trend over the past 15 years where a lot of educational institutions have wanted to make room for foreign students because they pay higher tuition fees.
As far as what we have seen over the past five years, it has become less and less of an issue. The fact that there are only a small number of spaces that are reserved at the end, if there is still room, is because often the school is marketing abroad to try to fill as many seats as possible. In some cases, there are fewer Canadian children to fill the seats.
It is less of an issue, but the fact that some students apply at the last minute, means it becomes a concern. It is not as significant as you probably recall.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a question on the overall visa program.
Whether you are a diplomat or a government official, parliamentarian or minister, or just the average person from another country, are our policies now the same? Do they have to go through the same scrutiny?
In other words, if I am a Nigerian applying to Canada, would the test be the same for me as a diplomat as for the parliamentarian and the businessman? Are they all the same? I know we passed the law — Bill C-35 — that made exemptions for giving a different process to attend international conferences in Canada. I know that is an exception but, otherwise, is it the same?
Ms. Siddall: Yes, in terms of screening a potential applicant against what we call the admissibility provisions of the act — criminality, security and health — it is the same for everyone regardless of rank, nationality or where they come from.
Senator Andreychuk: This is my final point. We are obviously under great scrutiny and we are looking at the Anti- terrorism Act, where we are being assured by ministers that Canada is more vigilant at the borders and in receiving people. Has the anti-terrorism concept affected the visa program?
Ms. Siddall: Particularly since 9/11 we have made significant investments in enhancing our screening abroad and at the port of entry. The short answer is yes. We are as vigilant and we have better systems and better computer databases. We have enhanced our specialized units, which are now in the border agency. It used to be within CIC, the responsibility for screening related to security, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Mr. Gilbert: The scrutiny in the United States has been much stronger. One of the impacts of that is that actually Canada has become more interesting for many students who are not necessarily interested in going to the United States. Many parents hesitate to send their children to the United States. Although we are adding scrutiny, it did not have a negative impact in terms of the number of students coming. We often hear that why they choose Canada is because they do not want to go to the United States.
The Chairman: I was a member of the green paper committee in the 1970s on the subject of immigration. I was a member of Parliament for Canada's largest immigrant-receiving community in downtown Toronto. Things seem to me to have slid since those days when MPs were very active. We heard this from the Africans, in regard to the difficulties of parliamentarians and officials coming to Canada. It is difficult to defend when I am getting a visa as I was recently for the Congo. I find that the rules they apply to me seem to be much easier than the rules we apply to them. I find that almost racist. I get treatment that I do not give the people who gave me the treatment. I do not like that.
By the way, we had information when we were conducting our Russia study that the same problem exists from Russia and the Baltic states. People just will not come here because it is so difficult. There is an officiousness that has entered the immigration system. Like many people here, I travel. I find coming here to be maybe the most officious experience when I come across the Canadian border.
My opinion is that something has gone wrong. It is an opinion based on the year I spent on the green paper committee when we made recommendations for the Immigration Act in 1976 or 1977 with Richard Tate as you may recall.
I know that we have a successful Japanese program. An Estonian member of Parliament said he taught at Concordia and gave it up because it was so difficult. We have heard this issue from Africa. You say that it is because of questions about human rights in countries that have had civil wars for years. If everyone was just protecting themselves, they would be banned from coming to Canada, from what I can understand.
I do know that fewer Canadians go to university outside of Canada than any OECD country. There is a feeling of isolating ourselves from the reality of the world. I personally find our immigration policy, which is the first place most people meet when they come to Canada, extremely officious but maybe no one else does so it does not matter.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to thank the witnesses for their speaking notes because it gives us a clear overview. The Department of Immigration is much different today than it was in the 1970s and the 1980s. I do not quite share your perspectives on the immigration system. I am a fierce critic of Citizenship and Immigration Canada on many issues, but there are also strengths in our system that should be noted.
There are some places I go where it seems very easy to get a visa. I question that. Have they done their homework? Sometimes I have to jump through more hoops to get a visa in another country than here. We must be cautious about our statements. I am still waiting for a visa seven days later and I am not sure when I will get it or if I will get it. That is part of the process.
What I heard in Nigeria, however, was whether they were being singled out in any way. We need some statistics to find out how other countries are dealing with Nigeria. The assessment here gives us something of a global picture of the immigration department. The visa problems in the Ukraine are problems that we want to overcome, but I am not sure it is just Africa where we have problems.
The Chairman: That is what I just said, Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: I do not think it is the bureaucrats' problem to answer.
The Chairman: It is a policy being applied by the bureaucracy. The policy would never have survived the members of Parliament in the 1970s who marched over to the building at the slightest provocation.
On December 1, 1972, when we changed the immigration system in Canada, everyone marched over to the offices every time there was an issue, as if it were fisheries or agriculture.
Ms. Siddall: With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I must take exception to your comment that ours is a racist system or that we in any way, as dedicated public servants, are racist in administering an act of Parliament.
The world of today is very different than 1970. The number of visitors coming to Canada has more than quadrupled. We are in more countries around the world. We have identified risks that we never in our wildest dreams would have thought of being risky in 1970.
The very countries that you have mentioned are those countries that pose great risks to Canada. I suggest that you invite the border agency, CSIS or the RCMP to this table if you want a fulsome explanation of the risks that we have of organized crime coming out of Russia and the former Soviet Union; of war crimes and crimes against humanity coming out of Africa and the former Yugoslavia; and issues of death squads and crimes against humanity coming out of Latin America.
Our job is to both facilitate and control. We are balancing our dual mandate to facilitate legitimate travellers to Canada for all the good reasons that the committee has seen in your travels, but we also personally — and I am a visa officer who has served in Africa, Asia, and Europe — have a responsibility to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians.
We take that responsibility very seriously. We do not always get that balancing act right. There are times when we are probably refusing people who should get a visa and there are times when we are issuing visas to people that we should not. You can follow those cases in the media, as well as our difficulties today in dealing with people who gained access to Canada and who we would rather have kept out.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think the chair was trying to reflect on you, Madam. As Senator Andreychuk said, if there is a problem, it is a policy problem, and that needs to be addressed with the minister and not with the bureaucrats.
I have a bit of a different twist to this. Let me just tell you what one member of Parliament from Mali, I believe, said. I think it is worthwhile talking about. He in effect said that one of the problems that they have is they send students, the ones we let in, and we educate them, and then they apply and we keep them. I may be using the wrong word, but he indicated something like, ``You came and stole our natural resources, and now you are stealing the people that can help us rebuild.''
I am actually trying to make a valid point here. I know that we have policies on how we deal with this, but should we be looking at some of these countries and saying, ``If you come here as a student, you cannot stay,'' regardless? As we talked about before with CIDA, we are trying to see if we can make some contribution to help Africa help itself. They are the people who will solve the problems, not us. Upon reflection, that seems to be something we should at least put on the record, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Siddall: We agree that this issue of brain drain needs careful consideration. We also have to remember there is the interest of the states but there is also the interest of the individual, such as individual rights and mobility rights. It is a universal system. Could you single out a certain nationality and say that if you are from this nationality, you will not be allowed to apply for permanent residence in Canada? With our student policy, we made a number of changes to try to make Canada a more attractive destination for foreign students, including working off-campus and working after graduation. We have been careful that where a student is sponsored by their own government or sponsored by CIDA, or Foreign Affairs, they do not have access to those programs.
However, there would be a rather valid Charter challenge if we were to suggest that if you come from France, you can make an application for permanent residence in Canada, but if you come from Mali, you can not. We have to look at that balance and determine if it is a foreign policy decision to not actively recruit permanent residents or certain categories of permanent residents or students. You posed the dilemma earlier. Why not more students from Africa? On the other hand, while we want them to come, we want to encourage them to return. My suggestion is some kind of work with the sending country so it is attractive for their students to return and make a contribution.
Senator Di Nino: Obviously I had no intention of suggesting we should forbid those who come from certain countries and not others. I agree totally with you.
It was important for us to put that on the record. It was a valid issue that was raised. I am not sure we can solve the problem today, but it may help solve the long-term problem of a number of African nations if we can find some solution to it.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, witnesses, for coming. This is a difficult subject. Unfortunately, we have not really had time to pursue it in depth, although you have heard some of our concerns.
The committee adjourned.