Thank you. I will make some brief general remarks.
First of all, I can only emphasize the importance of the standing committee's study on the Congo. I assume that you are already aware of the importance of the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Canadian policy. We are very happy to be here.
There are good reasons to study Canadian policy as it pertains to the Congo. I came in late, unfortunately, and so I did not hear the presentations made by your guests from the Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA. As far as we are concerned, on the civil society side, we note and deplore Canada's loss of interest in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we don't understand it. We deplore it and feel the situation must be rectified.
If I may, I am going to go back in time a little to make some comparisons, but very briefly, without giving any history lessons. In recent years, for 10 years, Canadian policy has focused on building sustainable peace and dialogue with other partners. That is because Congo is very important for stability in the region, but also because Congo plays a major role in rebuilding and kick-starting economic development in the continent.
Despite that, we seem to be seeing, and I reiterate, a loss of interest by Canada. One might think that since the last election, stability and peace have returned to the region and to the Congo, especially since the agreements, the Rwanda and Congo joint peacekeeping mission in North Kivu to combat the FDLR. On the ground, we are hearing that is not really the case. We hope that is the case, but we cannot say that peacekeeping and sustainable peace are there to stay.
There have been significant improvements over a large part of the territory, but I remind you that in one of the five territories of the province of North Kivu, 100,000 people have been displaced over the past month. Those numbers may seem negligeable for the Congo, because there is always a tendency to exaggerate, the problems are so enormous, but that is the case.
I want to take a step back to point out how Canada's involvement has been consistent and regular. May I remind you that in 1996, Canada launched a military and humanitarian mission to mitigate the crises: the humanitarian crisis and the security crisis in the Rwandan Hutu refugee camps in eastern Congo. That was a Canadian initiative. I won't go back over that mission, which was doomed to fail, and we could see why. Today, Canada's involvement in MONUC is limited to a military contribution of some eight or nine officers. In that regard, the contribution is somewhat lacking.
Since the signing of the Lusaka peace accord in 1999, Canada has been quick to provide political and financial support for the work of Botswana's former President Ketumile Masire, the facilitator organizing the inter-Congolese dialogue. Canada provided that support until the conclusion of the inter-Congolese dialogue, which led to the creation of a transitional government. That was up until 2003. From 2003 to 2007, at the invitation of other influential foreign countries involved in the Congo, Canada participated in the Comité international d'accompagnement de la transition (Congolese transition support committee), which existed to closely support the government. At the same time, Canada became massively involved with the Netherlands as a coordinator of the Group of Friends of the Great Lakes Region, from 2003 to 2006. In 1998, Canada appointed a special envoy who had the status of an ambassador.
In July 2008 that position was abolished, and since then, Canada's diplomatic position in the Congo has been unclear. What remains at present is an ambassador-at-large position, as it is called, or an advisory position that is now linked to Central Africa, with considerably less power, of course. That led to a considerable loss in terms of understanding of broad political issues in the region, what is happening, and knowledge of political players, which we had during that period.
I will conclude by saying that one of the reasons why we don't understand Canada's loss of interest is that Canada, as you know, has become a mining superpower on the African continent. That is how statistics from Natural Resources Canada present the situation. Thirty-three to thirty-four per cent of all investments in mining on the African continent come from Toronto, Canada. The only other country that invests as much—a little bit more—is South Africa, but it is investing in its own country. I will give you an example, and I am talking about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2001, Canadian assets were worth $340 million. In 2007, Canadian assets in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were $2.6 billion, or eight times higher. In the Congo, Canada is the leader in mining. When we introduce ourselves, when we travel around now, people who do not know us and who learn that we are Canadian ask us if we work in mining.
Of course these investments come from agreements signed during rather troubled times. The contracts signed by Canadian companies—there are now about a dozen—were signed during the transition period, at a time when the government or the authorities were dealing either with people from Kinshasa or rebel groups. That is why the legitimacy of these contracts leaves a lot to be desired, and has resulted in the Congolese questioning, and lumping together all of these contracts saying that these contracts are leonine ones which have clearly lost some legitimacy, as I was saying.
There have been several reports, three, including a United Nations report by the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which singled out nine Canadian companies from among the 90 foreign companies involved for having violated OECD guiding principles. The United Nations Security Council did not want to take further action. But the Congolese government did. The Congolese government set up two commissions of inquiry. The Lutundula Commission, during the transitional period, raised the rather dubious aspects of most of these contracts. The report was never debated in the Congolese parliament. However, Mr. Kabila's new government, which was formally elected, set up a commission for negotiation, a commission of inquiry, on 60 mining contracts including eight or nine Canadian contracts. None of the 60 contracts were spared criticism, but on the list of contracts to be rejected completely were four from Canadian companies. The renegotiation process is underway, at present, and there seem to be some problems. Arrangements have been made for the majority of contracts. Among the last six contracts, where companies are slow to reach an agreement, are four Canadian companies.
I will conclude by saying this: Last year was a record year on the stock exchange. Mining securities hit unprecedented highs. What was the benefit in the Congo for the people of the Congo? Nothing. There were very few benefits for the Government of the Congo.
So for the Congolese whom we meet with regularly, life in the mining zones depends on foreign markets, the Toronto or the London stock exchange. As a result, during the period I mentioned a little earlier, Canada was seen as a middle power but an effective one. At present, Canada is part of the problem.
Thank you.