Thank you.
To answer your question about legality, there were obviously elections in the Congo in 2006, which resulted in the establishment of new institutions, with an elected President of the Republic and a Parliament, but in my opinion, elections are not enough to legitimize someone's power. Elections must be followed by actual government operations on the ground. For example, there must be a demonstration of the government's responsibility for managing the affairs of state.
To come back to the example of Canadian companies developing ore in the Congo, well before 1996, at the time of the AFDL's so-called “liberation” war, companies were already signing contracts with rebels who had not yet won power. Subsequently, when the AFDL took office, these companies signed what we, as Congolese observers, call “one-sided contracts”—in other words, contracts that in no way benefit the DRC or the people of the Congo.
If we are bringing this problem to Parliament, and to your Committee, it is because all the reports confirm that these companies are not at all complying with Canadian ethical principles with respect to ore development outside of Canada. It is a dilemma that you, yourself, have pointed to. There is a government in place, but that government is irresponsible. Yes, it does exist, but should we allow an irresponsible government to destroy an entire country, an entire nation? That government is incapable of ensuring the safety of people and property.
The eastern region of the country has been practically abandoned to the Rwandans. A responsible government should not be bringing soldiers from Laurent Nkunda's CNDP army who have been fighting and killing in the eastern part of the country, and who have raped women. He has brought them into the army. Through communiqués, we are now hearing that these same CNDP soldiers are raping women on a daily basis and burning down people's huts and houses. So, what we are dealing with is a government that is completely incapable of carrying out its duties.