Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I'll just give you my background in Africa. I think I am the only Canadian who has ever graduated from the University of Rwanda, so it goes a few years back, just a few years back, fortunately, but Africa has been a little bit in my blood since then.
Thank you for giving the Canadian Council on Africa an opportunity to talk about such an important issue for Africa, but also for many Canadians.
In October 2012, in Paris, our Minister of Foreign Affairs declared the following:We must not allow the same problems that the world allowed to happen in Afghanistan to show their face in the Saharan region and Mali. The territorial integrity…the humanitarian situation, the fight against terrorism must remain a priority.
The minister expressed, I think, at that time, what Canadians believed then and still believe now. We should then look at Mali with that frame of mind, with the same glasses. Does it require the same action, the same approach? Maybe not, but one thing is for sure in our minds: that to be absent, to do nothing, is definitely not the response for such a condition.
CC Africa is an organization that was established about 10 years ago in the footsteps of Kananaskis. We're a group from the private sector, education, universities, and colleges. All of the government departments interested in the economic development of Africa also are members. Our mission is the economic development of Africa. We're not as much on the humanitarian side as many others are. We work with them, but our main focus is the economy of Africa.
Canada cannot afford to adopt an attitude of indifference or inactivity. That would be a serious mistake, as we would be failing to meet our responsibilities as a rich and developed country.
I realize a number of witnesses addressed the humanitarian issue as well as the stability of the region. Today I would like to shed some light on the economic aspect of the crisis, and what it means for Canada.
I will not go into all the potential scenarios in the region.
Again, there are many ways of looking at the region and what might happen there.
Many people have probably painted a bleak picture of the situation. Unfortunately, that could become a reality faster than we think. I would like to raise three reasons for Canada to play a role in this conflict.
For starters, some Canadian companies have major investments in Mali and the neighbouring regions. In Mali alone, we have 30 mining companies, which have invested a total of $400 million. Although those companies have not decided to leave the country, they may have to do so if peace is not restored. Some companies have already started slowing down their investments.
For the same reason, no new investments should be expected. Mali is a poor country in great need of those investments. So we have to protect the asset those natural resources represent. If investors continue to pursue economic development, those resources will help the countries make progress. The investments are even larger in the neighbouring countries—especially Niger and Burkina Faso—totalling billions of dollars.
Canada also continues to play a key role in Mali's economy. For those who are unaware, since the 2000s, a Canadian company, Canadian Bank Note, which is based here, in Ottawa, has been in charge of Mali's whole passport issuing system. It has also been responsible for the border control, tax documentation, license tax and tax systems. That's an enormous amount of work. An interesting fact about that huge job is that Canada won the contract over France, its competitor in that case. Some would say that France is creating an amazing springboard for itself going forward. So if Canada is not involved, it will lose out considerably.
More recently, a Montreal-based company, CRC Sogema, developed in Mali what could be referred to as a key element—a tax system. That project has been in the works since the 2000s and has just been revived with the setting up of a property tax system. That represents a revenue of 67 billion CFA francs for the Malian government. That figure is now over 200.
Canada has set up basic economic systems in Mali. It continues to provide Malians with very considerable assistance. Unfortunately, the conflict has led to a drastic drop in some of that revenue. The tax recovery rate is now 30%. It was much higher before the conflict began.
There is another reason for Canada to answer the call. My colleague here has talked about that. Despite all the good will of a number of African countries that have volunteered to help restore peace or perform peacekeeping activities, most of them do not have the required financial resources to equip themselves properly. The same goes for human resources training.
Given those circumstances, how could a military or peace force ensure peace, be it in large cities or across the country? I think that an exclusively African intervention would be very risky and would fail to achieve the desired outcome—peace, security and democratic governance.
As for the third point, I care deeply about Mali. I am sure that's the case for some members of the committee and perhaps even, I hope, for everyone around this table. Mali is one of the rare francophone African countries that could be qualified as a “country of focus”. Since the government made changes one or two years ago, only 2 francophone nations out of 26 remain countries of focus—Mali and Senegal.
If we reduce our presence in Senegal, the situation in certain communities will become even more of a purgatory than it currently is. In other words, that country is very appreciated by Canada. Its governance has been used as an example for a number of years, and Canada has carried out some amazing assistance programs there, as I just mentioned.
Can Canada afford to be a casual observer in this conflict? We don't think so. We have played an important role in Afghanistan, be it when it comes to assistance, development, logistics or training on the front, among other things. A few minutes ago, we talked about boots. We also played an active role in Libya. To a lesser extent, we play a role that has an impact on Syria, even though it is outside its territory. The terrorism issue is not close to being resolved. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, that issue is still very real in Mali and the region.
Why are we considering taking an almost-neutral approach in the case of such a poor country? I may be exaggerating a bit. We are not neutral; we say we are in favour of a solution. However, some of our actions indicate that we are not far from being neutral. Yet that is not in keeping with either the statements made by the minister or those made by Canadians.
We do not recommend an approach similar to that used in Afghanistan or Syria. However, we believe that Canada can increase its humanitarian aid and public safety assistance, and provide logistic support to African troops that are in the field and will probably remain there for quite some time. I am talking about support in communications, training and transportation. Finally, we recommend that Canada be very active when it comes to diplomacy and trade.
Knowing that I would appear today before this committee, members of certain companies asked me to give a clear message to the elected representatives. They want you to know that they continue to work in Africa because they have access to a system that complies with laws and regulations. According to them, if they leave or drastically reduce their presence, Canadian investments will be withdrawn or the commercial territory—if I may use that expression—will be totally taken over by others. If that is the case, Canada will lose out in one of the only two countries where it has some presence.
We risk losing a great deal, be it in terms of our influence in Africa, as I mentioned earlier, our trade interests—especially when it comes to investments—or the francophonie. I constantly hear other governments in Canada talk about that. I think that the Canadian government should also pay attention to that aspect.
I have gone slightly over my 10 minutes. Thank you.
