Foreign Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How can pressure be brought to bear on the government? It is the government expressing its wishes; the government and the President are the ones calling for the withdrawal of MONUC.

[Alfred Lukhanda]

That is correct. In the latest report released on April 8 by Ms. Arbour, who leads the International Crisis Group, she says that in the Congo, plans for democratization are completely bogged down. Even before Ms. Arbour's report, in July 2009, the International Federation for Human Rights published a report entitled “Democratic Republic of Congo: The Authoritarian Drift of the Regime”. In the report released by the organization led by Ms. Arbour, one of the recommendations is that Canada tie its aid to good governance criteria. Congolese bishops came here last December. They were received by members of Parliament. They said that corruption is becoming the “general environment in which political action occurs”. That is taken from their July 2009 and July 2008 statements on the occasion of the 48th and 49th anniversaries of the Congo's independence.

What do we expect from Canada? It did not fund elections to arrive at the result described by Ms. Arbour in her report. She is Canadian; she is a fellow citizen. When she publishes a report, I may read it six times over. Her proposals say it all. We only have to follow Ms. Arbour's recommendations.

In addition to that, there are other reports, and the arrest warrant issued by the Spanish authorities. We also have an arrest warrant issued by French authorities. Those reports describe the perpetrators of the crimes committed in the Congo, as well as the connection between the genocide in Rwanda and the terror in the Congo. That is part of the plan. The judicial systems of both France and Spain—two democratic countries like Canada—have said that. And the evidence is there.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Finally, who benefits most from crime?

[Alfred Lukhanda]

Paul Kagame and the people who want to exploit the Congo's wealth. Those people are certainly not in Africa. In fact, Paul Kagame is only the armed branch of the large multinationals. That has been archived and documented. The report issued by the United Nations expert group is clear in that regard. We can provide a copy. The multinationals are the ones benefiting from crime. And Paul Kagame also benefits, because he has been--

It is all because of the missile fired at President Habyarimana. That is where the whole thing began. We know what the path of that missile was. It left the Soviet Union, and went to Uganda and then to Kigali. The people who fired it were trained, and we know their names. We also know in which taxi the people who fired the missile travelled. We know where they stayed, before the missile was launched. Everything is there. We can provide you with the evidence. Canada has to act now, because the evidence is there. With Bill C-300, Canada is acting based on a plan. The evidence is so clear, and we are prepared to provide it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Madame Deschamps.

We now move over to the government side.

Mr. Obhrai, you have seven minutes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you very much.

As you know, I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Coming out of the instability that has been in Congo for a long time, Kofi Annan, when he was Secretary-General of the UN, initiated the Great Lakes region initiative and asked Canada and everybody else to help bring stability back to Congo.

In that capacity, I went to Congo. I visited during election time. It was quite an exercise, I must say, to have an election with 800 candidates. It was a great election. I was there on the ground at the time. I went from Kigali down to Goma. Then I went to the Great Lakes region initiative conference that took place in Nairobi, with all the countries coming down. Canada was there.

There is no question that Canada took an active role. I met with the NGOs of the Great Lakes region initiative to see how we could assist to get Congo back on its feet.

There are a lot of challenges in that region, no question. Those who perpetrated the massacres in Rwanda moved into the eastern Congo--into Goma and that area. The LRA up north is using Congo as a base. Nobody underestimates the fact that there are serious problems of rape and all these things. I visited hospitals that are working hard to help these ladies who have been raped. There are a lot of people and NGOs working very hard.

The fact still remains, and it is a clearly important fact, that there has been progress over there. You have identified areas of concern, and we will not say that they are not areas of concern. But the fact of the matter remains that after the Great Lakes region initiative, there was an agreement signed by all these countries to not interfere with each other.

The headquarters of the Great Lakes is now in Bujumbura, and is run by the former Tanzanian foreign minister.

The fact is that it is a work in progress in Congo. It may not have been doing very well preceding that. The MONUC is there doing all these things. What we should be doing is helping civil society to build capacity and help this government, instead of saying, as you have been saying, that the current government is illegal. Now, finally, after all this fighting, there are institutions coming up in Congo.

I think I will conclude by saying that while your group is here bringing all these things out—I do not say that they are not there; they are there—I would say that your group should actually be looking at ways to assist civil society in building the capacity to bring Congo back. It is wrong to say that only the Government of Canada can do it and that the Government of Canada should do it. You are a Congolese of Canadian origin. You have an excellent opportunity here to move forward. There are a lot of good things happening in Congo. Let's focus on that.

That's all I need to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is there any response?

[Marc Kapenda, Member, Agir Ensemble pour la Paix au Congo]

Distinguished members of Parliament, what I would like to say is that the Congo is a two-tier country. You say that there are things that are working well in the Congo. For example, reference was made to the Constitution, which was described earlier as progressive. However, the actions of the government lead us to believe nothing is working as it should. We are speaking out against corruption and the fact that a government, which is supposed to be sovereign and capable, in principle, of protecting its own territory, is totally unable to do that. On the contrary, it is selling or transferring portions of its territory, without any prior consultations with Parliament or the civil society. The rules developed in cooperation with civil society—and the same applies to the Constitution—are seen as progressive. However, when you look at the government's action, you clearly see that there is nothing positive happening.

I would just like to remind you that on March 1, 2000, we appeared before the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At that time, we raised exactly the same issues. We spoke out against violations of human rights, including freedom of expression. We denounced the acts of genocide, committed with the government's cooperation, against the civilian population. The Rwandan militias were primarily behind that genocide. We also denounced the plundering of the country's mining resources by Rwanda, Uganda and the multinationals. That was on March 1, 2000. Today, the situation remains the same.

At the time, the President was Laurent Kabila. In 2006, Joseph Kabila succeeded him. In the 2006 elections, which brought the young Kabila to power, we had requested a contribution from Canada in the form of election observation, in order to help the Congolese civil society elect a responsible government. Canada therefore participated in the 2006 elections by sending observers. Canada was also part of the supporting committee, which included the embassies of foreign countries which supported the democratic process. After those elections, as you know, there was a tremendous outcry about the fact that the newly elected government had been brought to power contrary to the will of the people.

If a president is elected with less than 20% of the popular vote and the majority of the population followed orders and abstained from voting, what legitimacy can you really attribute to such a government? It is quite true that, subsequently, that same President elect bought the entire Parliament, so that there would no longer be such a thing—to ensure that Parliament would no longer play its role and that it would be part of its majority. So, we are talking about a government that was not elected by the majority, but which subsequently bought a Parliament and appointed all the country's institutions. What legitimacy can you attribute to such a government? How can it be called democratic?

So, there is a democratic deficit in the Congo that makes its government illegitimate.

The country operates at two levels, and the civil society wants a legitimate government. It is therefore calling on friendly, democratic countries to provide support, and yet we are still waiting for that legitimate government to materialize. If it has not materialized, it is because friendly countries are not sincerely contributing to the creation of a truly democratic regime in the Congo. That is a major problem. Sovereignty in that country is suffering, security is suffering, and peace is suffering.

I would like to close by saying that there is no army in the Congo. Following the departure of Mobutu, as you know, the national army was completely dispersed, and since then, the army has been made up of the current President's militias, which are composed of Rwandan and Angolese militias, as well as certain Congolese groups. However, there is no national army.

Do you believe that a country like the Congo, with such a significant democratic deficit and a problem of responsible government, cannot be helped by democratic countries to establish a truly democratic system under which the country can assert its sovereignty?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move over to Mr. Dewar for the last question of this round.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Merci à tous.

I'll start with where we might find consensus among members and you. In both your responses and your opening remarks you've suggested that Canada should support peacekeeping in the Congo. I believe that's the case.

You're aware that General Leslie has been asked to head the MONUC mission, and we're waiting for the government to respond to that. I think that's a pretty clear consensus among people here, and I think people around the table would see that as something that Canada can do.

I would agree with you. When I was in the Congo last year, there was great concern among some of the international NGOs and among some of the people I talked to in the embassies from Europe and in our own embassy around the Congolese army and how effective it was beyond Kinshasa and that region, and specifically in the DRC. One of the issues was how the army is paid.

There had been some work done to normalize the standards within the Congolese army--that is, to make sure that the people who were enlisted in the Congolese army were going to be paid. One of the concerns I heard was that basically the upper echelon were responsible for paying the soldiers and they would literally come out with bags of cash to hand out to the soldiers. Often the money wasn't being handed out to the soldiers, so the soldiers went out and got involved in activities they shouldn't have been involved in.

I would think there would be some need to normalize the standards within the Congolese army. I think you touched on this point. There has been an absorption within the Congolese army of many other factions, and it's not clear what the Congolese army is. I think that's something you mentioned, so clearly that's in need of help.

One thing I think Canadians are seized with are programs to fight violence against women, particularly rape, and for the prevention of rape, and also the health services that are required. The government has supported these programs, but I'm not sure if they're going to continue to support them. One of the things I heard on the ground when I was there last year is the need for airlift capacity in the east so that you can take people who have been victims of the war to clinics to get the health services they need, but there is also a need to provide support for women to prevent rape, and that requires a combination of security protection from MONUC and support for women themselves.

Finally, on mining, some work is being done in the United States on legislation to deal with minerals and mining being done in the DRC and to track it. I wonder if you have any opinion on the legislation that is being debated right now in Washington and if you think that's something Canada should be doing, because we're very implicated in mining in the east Congo.

I would say to my colleagues that we're not talking about the usual list of minerals. Coltan, which is in all the BlackBerrys we use, is probably coming from the DRC. It is a conflict mineral. Recently there have also been concerns about uranium, and of course there is a concern around where this uranium is going and what it's being used for. Clearly we need to take a look at it.

Could I, then, have your opinions on peacekeeping and the Congolese army and how that can be dealt with, as well as your opinions on support for women, both for prevention of rape and for health services? Also, could you give your opinions on legislation in Washington, if you have opinions on it, and whether we should be adopting legislation here when it comes to conflict minerals?

Thank you.

[Alfred Lukhanda]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar.

We have always said that if we do not control the movements of terrorist groups in the East, the Congo will not be the only country affected, because this sort of thing crosses borders. We are talking about uranium. There is an ASADHO report on this. At the same time, the president of the association is in jail. The uranium leaving the country illegally represents a threat for the entire world, including Canada. We do not want to experience another Nagasaki. We do not want to experience another Hiroshima. In order to prevent that, we have to stop uranium from leaving the country illegally. I repeat: the president of that association is in prison.

In terms of helping women who are raped, there is only one thing to be done: Kagame has to be put somewhere where he can no longer harm people. The best investment for Canada is not necessarily to help women who have been raped. We have to stop the rapes from happening in the beginning. All of this comes from Kagame, so please help us. Help our fellow citizens in the Congo. Six million dead is too many! Implementing an anti-rape program is a waste of money. Bringing Kagame under control might cost a thousand times less than such a program.

With respect to the bill and the mines, I think we have said enough about that. We very much appreciate Canada's efforts with respect to the moral responsibility of corporations. I would say that this book does not really do me much credit. Everything about the Congo is in it—including the fact that the rebels were armed to take power. We know that the author has his own problems, but these are public sources that have been verified. The authors of these quoted sources are not subject to prosecution.

In closing, I would just like to talk about my colleague's report. It relates to the civil society. We talked about the fact that the civil society needs help, but the fact is that those who defend human rights are in jail. There is a report from Amnesty International. What civil society are we helping? The reports issued by the Catholic bishops of the Congo show that nothing is working and that there is no visionary leadership. The bishops' letter and the reports are there. Nothing is working in the Congo. Indeed, Ms. Arbour said precisely that in her April 8 report.

Mr. Dewar, one solution for the Congolese army would be that it no longer include foreigners. I like foreigners. The Congo welcomes foreigners. I cannot vote in the Congo because I am not Congolese. However, peace in Afghanistan and the Congo concerns me as a Canadian. We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We want the values that made Canada prosperous to be established elsewhere—in those countries where we are active. The Congolese army is composed of foreigners; that is a known fact. We call on you, our members of Parliament, to help us. The CNDP is not a Congolese army; it is a foreign army. That is a documented fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Are there any other final comments?

Monsieur Teuwen.

[Albert Teuwen, Member, Agir Ensemble pour la Paix au Congo]

There is an elected government in the Congo. The road is long. Democracy is a process that takes a very long time, and it is not possible to build a democracy in the space of four years. Canada has more than 150 years of democracy. However, what Canada can do is support the Congo. We are here to ask Canada for that support.

Instability in the Eastern Congo benefits the mining companies. When certain areas are unstable, the resources are extracted and sent elsewhere. Thus they bring in no income to the Congo. The Congo's budget has been assessed at $6 billion. However, I can tell you that, if all its resources were accounted for, that budget would be 20 or 30 times greater. But the government is not in a position to lead the country.

And let us talk about the effectiveness of MONUC. We saw what happened in Bosnia and in Afghanistan. The United Nations mandates are often very weak. We have very often seen NATO get involved, to finally provide some direction. MONUC, ten years later, is still trying to find its way. Canadian leadership would be welcome, but at the same time that mandate must be changed: a clear mandate is needed so that the people can be protected.

And let us talk about democracy and political parties. There is a government in place, but the other political parties do not have the right to work. Let us take the case of the Canadian government. We know how it works. At the end of an election, some income is generated and, based on the voting, that income is distributed to all the political parties. In the Congo, only the party with the majority has that right. The party with the majority, that forms the government, takes that income to fund its campaign. The other political parties do not have that right.

We are asking Canada for support. There is a government in place. But the Congolese must make their own decisions. They are the ones that will help their country to move forward, but we need that support from Canada for democratic institutions, through the values that you pass on to us. We want to inculcate those same values in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

With that, I'm going to thank the group for being here today. Thank you very much for your time. There's obviously no shortage of issues that all of you have to deal with, and we appreciate you giving us a chance to hear what is going on in your country today.

The meeting is adjourned.