Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Conflict in Mali

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, would the hon. member, my colleague, agree with me that we do not invest for the sake of spending money but for the sake of results, and we take heart from the fact that our allies and our African partners are getting results.

There is something like 4,000 French troops on the ground, and they have had success. There are 3,800 troops from ECOWAS, most in Bamako but now moving northwards, and they have had success. Troops mobilized within Africa are meeting the military demand, and therefore none of our allies, who do not have troops based in Africa, are participating with troops on the ground. We are simply following their example.

Does the hon. member not agree that this has proven to be, in a very short time, a wise course of action, and that our longer term commitments to Mali, which have given institutional results in the form of some of the best units of the Malian army and the institution that is now serving as the headquarters for AFISMA, will be continued over the longer term?

In the meantime, the most urgent need, which we have met with incremental funding, is the humanitarian need. That is probably the issue that we in Canada need to be following most closely, so long as the military mission continues to progress in a positive direction.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, obviously the military situation is evolving in a very positive way. Once the situation is resolved, the aid that we have already committed will be able to resolve the humanitarian situation that exists in Mali today.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his remarks and note his service in the Canadian armed forces and his experience in Afghanistan. Perhaps because of that experience, I wonder if he would share with the House his view on whether Canada could, as some of my colleagues have asked, adopt a more robust role militarily in supporting allies.

I agree entirely with his assessment of the importance of pushing back the extremist and terrorist threat. I think he correctly highlighted that success. I do not disagree necessarily with his view that a direct combat role for Canadian Forces at this point is not something the government should look at. The Prime Minister has been clear on that.

However, is there another role than providing this airplane for five weeks? Could it be training or logistic support, perhaps in an office in Bamako? Are there other ways that the military could provide non-combat support other than the plane simply going between Bamako and Paris?

The member's experience in Afghanistan would show that this is invaluable and I wonder if he would share his thoughts on that with the House.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, as a former military person, I think that if a request for that were made, it would be considered by our government.

I can say that there is a lot of support being provided in Africa at this point. On January 22, the U.S. air force deployed French troops in Mali. Also the Germans and others are supporting the cleanup of Malian territory from terrorists, and also from neighbouring countries. We also need to note that January 16 was very close to the French intervention and that it was on January 11 that there was the terrorist attack on Amenas, north of the Malian border.

I would also like to inform the hon. member that I participated in the emergency debate at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly that took place from January 21 to 23. There, I had quite good information on what was going on in Mali.

To conclude, I think our government will consider the necessary steps as the situation evolves, on the premise that the Prime Minister outlined that we will not provide combat troops on the ground.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Last week we got our first glimpse of the government's thinking on this conflict in Mali. It was instructive in a way that the government possibly did not intend it to be. When General Vance was asked what Canada's military goal in Mali is, he spent a lot of time sort of figuring out what our military goal is and finally settled on the notion that our military goal is actually to support France.

At one level, we actually do not have a military goal, other than to support France. I guess the follow-up question would be what is France's military goal in this region. We are left with the notion that, if we are supporting France, we have to hope that its military goal is the same as ours.

I would have preferred to have heard more directly from the government. There has been some dancing around by the parliamentary secretary and others, who are saying that the Sahel region is an area of significant interest to our security, and international and regional security.

Frankly, the parliamentary secretaries have been quite articulate. It would have been useful had the government, even a couple of weeks ago, articulated the issue of Islamicist insurrections, Islamicist threats to the region and to the area, and articulated a plan to us. Thus far we have heard bits and pieces of this and that, but no overall plan of what we will actually be doing in this area.

It is in our security interest that the Islamicist threat be contained, be degraded. I do not anticipate that it will actually ever be defeated, but certainly it can be put in a position where its ability to inflict harm on others is minimized to the greatest extent possible.

If there is a caution in all of this, it is to resist the temptation to be too ambitious. Mali is a bit of a mess, to put it delicately. There have been coups and counter-coups, and the rather shadowy Captain Sanogo operates on a level that is not entirely—and probably is not in any way—accountable, transparent or in any sense democratic.

He commands an army that is poorly trained and, frankly, is prone to taking into its own hands some extra-judicial killings. The Tuareg people do not recognize, at the best of times, the authority of the Bamako government. They are a very fierce and independent Berber group of people who have acquired, since the fall of Libya, a significant cache of armaments, and from time to time have hooked up with the jihadists to actually create a very formidable fighting force, which precipitated the intervention of the French just a few weeks ago

The whole situation with respect to the Tuareg is quite confusing. They do not recognize the Bamako authority. They make common cause with the jihadists, but as soon they try to declare the northern part of Mali as an independent Berber state, then the jihadists and they part company.

One of the things that has not been discussed this evening is the Islamicist concept of time. This is a 7th century version of Islam, and we have a 21st century military. Our sense of time is not their sense of time. Their individual defeat, such as what they are experiencing currently at the hands of the French, is not important to them, because they are doing “God's will” and when they are doing God's will, they can never lose.

I am going to turn the balance of time over to my colleague. I look forward to a few questions from colleagues in the House.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, our view on this side of the House is that the concept of time for these groups should be that their time is over. That should be our message from all sides of the House, and certainly from all capitals.

However, let us clarify the question of what kind of mission this is. We have had some confusion about peacekeeping missions and combat missions. There are roughly 80,000 troops on UN peacekeeping missions at the moment. There are, what colleagues in the NDP neglect to mention, over a hundred thousand troops still in NATO missions. Canada has about a thousand in the most important of those missions. Does the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood agree that this mission is neither of those?

It is certainly not a NATO mission and given its mandate, it is certainly not a UN peacekeeping mission. It is a pseudo sui generis combat mission led by Africans but with strong French participation, because France has troops based in Africa. That formula has worked so far, and so long as it continues to work, we in Canada should not be questioning it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, of course this is not a peacekeeping mission. There is no peace to be kept, so that is a non-starter as a question. The question does exhibit a certain confusion on the part of the government though, because the government's position at this point in the evening is that we are actually supporting the French in their mission. Whatever the French mission is, that is our mission.

The government is not supporting the UN mandated mission, which is quite a robust mission. Hence, the contradiction in the government's position that it is supporting the French but, for whatever reason, not the UN. The consequence of that is that when the French leave, when they decide their mission is over, our mission is over. Therefore, the African troops are left on their own without any support from Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have been in this take note debate since it began many hours ago, trying to discern if we actually have very much difference between all of us here in the House of Commons. We are debating a situation in Mali, in which Canada is currently playing a minimal role with an aircraft support plane to deliver goods. We are talking about a more humanitarian mission going forward in the future. I think members on all sides of the House might be prepared to consider a United Nations peacekeeping mission, if there were one.

We have been at great pains to try to find fault with each other and partisan difference. However, I think this is one of those rare discussions where we are debating something where the situation is fluid. We want to make sure that Canada does not get engaged in Mali in a way that deters from our fundamental values.

I would like to ask my friend, because I thought his comments about the nature of Islamists was fascinating, if he thinks on this one occasion in the House we might have more in common than in difference?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would dearly love to say yes to my hon. colleague. My problem is that the government has yet to state its goal, tell us what the plan is and recognize that whatever the plan is it has to involve AFISMA. Also, real money has to be put behind AFISMA. If we do not do that, we are almost setting it up as a failure.

As I said to my colleague, I would love to be agreeable and have some direct conversation with my colleagues as to why the government to this point has not supported AFISMA, but it has not and that is the critical question here.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am a bit disappointed with the way this so-called take note debate is going. During a take note debate, we are supposed to explore possible avenues and measures. We certainly need to determine our objectives.

The government side mainly spoke about the historical background of the situation. They talked about things that happened far in the past or in more recent weeks, but they spoke very little about the future. I get the impression that the government is using this debate to see what the opposition parties want. It is unfortunate because, if we want to have an honest take note debate, the government has to put forward some options and listen to the opposition parties' reactions. That is not exactly what is happening, and that bothers me.

It is important to put this into context. I am going to share with the House what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. He was in Washington not too long ago, on January 28. A journalist asked him:

Turning to the crisis in North and West Africa, do you believe that al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s expanding control of northern Mali presents a threat to Canada and Canadian interests?

Here is what the minister responded:

I think the great struggle of our generation is the struggle against radical extremists and international terrorists wherever they are in the world. That’s not an issue exclusively about Mali’s neighbourhood. It’s an issue for all humanity.

I totally agree with the minister on that. It is indeed one of the great struggles of our time and it is a struggle, as the member for Toronto Centre said, in a diminishing world where everything is linked.

If we indeed believe that we have to counter the terrorist threat when it manifests itself by taking hold of two-thirds of a country in West Africa, where the series of neighbours, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mauritania, have borders that are very porous and are a stone's throw from Europe, one would have to wonder, if indeed that is the philosophy of the government, why it is not acting more. It may translate to boots on the ground, but it may not have to. However, it certainly has to translate to help in the funds, which have not occurred, to fight this situation. It can translate into training, which has been talked about both by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It can translate into other means and so forth. However, I am a little worried about this disconnect between the philosophy that animates the government, and on the other hand, the seeming timidity in responding to a real threat.

There are three things I want to bring up very quickly, which I hope the government would take note of and explore. First, it seems that the major cities have been cleared, but there is a vast territory to look into now. There are 3,000 forces from ECOWAS.

ECOWAS will provide 3,000 soldiers and Mali itself will provide 6,000, which represents an average-sized deployment over such a vast territory. So they will need help.

Does Canada, through ECOWAS and the African Union, plan on doing something to stabilize the situation in Mali and maybe even continue to counter the terrorist forces?

And what will we specifically do to help with the upcoming election, which seems to be a very important reason for the government to resume negotiations with or reinstate direct assistance to the Malian government? Will we unfreeze some of this money to help run a real election? Some things could be done from Canada. Elections Canada, New Brunswick, Élections Québec and Ontario all have French-language capabilities. They may be interested in participating.

Will there be an observation mission and will we participate if there is another one organized by an organization like La Francophonie, for example? These are things to explore. Perhaps the minister will come speak to us later. I think that is important.

We have not heard this evening about the Malian diaspora here, in Canada, and elsewhere in the world. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees—390,000, I heard.

Of that number, some have families here in Canada. We could have been talking about family reunification or speeding up the immigration and refugee process to help the diaspora and the people of Mali. There has been no talk about that. The government has not proposed anything to that effect, where in other circumstances, it wanted to help by speeding up the process, but maybe not in Africa.

We have not heard the government talk about that and I would like it to say a few words about that.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he was a little pressed for time, since he had only five minutes left. I would like to give him an opportunity to speak more about the role Canada can play in supporting the return to democracy to Mali.

It is a failure, a difficult situation. The government mentioned a road map to democracy a number of times. I think everyone agrees that the status quo cannot last and that Mali needs a stable, open and transparent democracy again, like the one that Canada bragged about helping to establish in the past. It was obviously more fragile than we thought.

Does my colleague have any specific ideas? He mentioned Elections Canada and other provinces. But what can Canada do to steer the Malian government back towards a real democracy? What does he see Canada's role to be in this?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this issue.

If the government is really saying that it wants to work with a democratic government and that there is a road map for an election in July, there are many things that the Government of Canada, NGOs and Canadian government agencies can do to ensure that democracy is restored in Mali and Bamako.

I mentioned observers earlier. Canada has taken part in such an exercise before by sending nearly 500 observers to Europe to observe the election in Ukraine.

If Canada really wanted to express its desire to see democracy restored in Mali, could it dispatch a rather sizable observation mission? Could it send police officers with such a mission? Of course, we can expect that the election will not go smoothly in certain parts of Mali, especially given the terrorist groups who do not support democracy.

These are two simple ideas that the government must consider. It must come back to Parliament and tell us what direction it wants to take. It could even take the opportunity next week at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to indicate what it intends to do.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I listened intently to my friend when he answered the question about what we could possibly do and he said “lots of things”. We could actually do lots of things. NGOs could do lots of things. The government could do lots of things. When he finally arrived at specifying one thing, he specified an election observation mission, and that is interesting. The country he was referring to was Ukraine, which is just a tiny bit different than Mali. There are not a lot of terrorists running around in Ukraine today. I am not sure how we would send 500 Canadians to Mali and protect them. We would probably have to send a lot of troops there to protect the Canadian observation mission to observe that election.

Some form of international observation mission I am sure will be suggested and Canada will certainly consider it when that is suggested by the appropriate international organization. I do not think sending 500 Canadian civilians with a lot of Canadian soldiers to protect them from the al-Qaeda terrorists makes a lot of sense right now.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure if there was a mistake in the translation, but I did not talk about soldiers. I talked about police forces. This has often been done in many countries to ensure a minimal level of protection. I did not say it was absolutely necessary to send 500. I was giving an example of what has been done elsewhere. It could be a different number.

If we invited members of the diaspora, people who have become Canadian citizens and who understand how a democracy works, a large number of them would probably be willing to return to their country of origin to take part in observation missions, for instance.

Why is the parliamentary secretary being so negative? What a wet blanket. We are having a take note debate in order to explore ideas. We are proposing solutions and he reacts negatively to them, saying that maybe we should be more minimalist.

His Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that humanity's greatest challenge is terrorism. In the current situation in Mali, terrorists have practically taken control of the entire country. Yet he tells us not to overreact, not to stir things up too much. I find that attitude quite disappointing.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this take note debate on this important topic as we approach the midnight hour. I want to thank my colleagues across the House of Commons for participating in the discussion this evening.

As the House knows, events in Mali are unfolding quickly, and the Government of Canada is gravely concerned about the growing humanitarian crisis, not just in Mali but in the wider Sahel region. I welcome the opportunity to shed light on Canada's current role in providing assistance to Mali and in the Sahel.

Our hearts go out to the people of Mali. For nearly two decades, supported by a government committed to democracy, Malians have persevered against terrible odds. They have worked hard to reduce hunger, malnutrition, corruption and illiteracy, and Canada has been proud to support all of their efforts in this regard.

Our government developed a long-term program that supported Mali's own strategy for reducing poverty. Within that framework, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, focused on three priorities: the needs of children and youth, including the health of newborns and their mothers; food security; and governance. Our investments helped to generate impressive results, especially in the areas of health and education.

For example, between 2006 and 2010, the rate of prenatal consultation increased from 75% to 79%. Between 2007 and 2010, the percentage of live births attended by skilled health personnel jumped from 41% to 43%. More recently, in 2010, primary students received more than 1.2 million new textbooks, which allowed Mali to meet its target ratio of two textbooks per student. That will have a significant impact on the quality of their education.

In these troubled times, Canada remains a steadfast partner in Mali and the wider region in West Africa.

Drought and poor harvest over the last two years, combined with conflict in the north, has jeopardized the access of some two million people in Mali to nutritious food. It has put at risk the education of countless children and youth and has forced more than 385,000 people to flee their homes in search of sanctuary, either within Mali or in neighbouring countries. For that reason, Canada continues to provide humanitarian assistance, and in a very strong way.

Our support is helping to distribute hygiene kits to prevent the spread of illness and disease. It is feeding children suffering from hunger and malnutrition. It is providing blankets and shelter to families who have left everything behind. It is enabling families to earn money so that they can meet their basic needs with dignity.

Our government will continue to respond to the evolving humanitarian needs of the Malian people. Through our partners, such as the international Red Cross movement, the UN World Food Programme and Canadian NGOs, our support is reaching people desperately in need, both in Mali and in affected countries.

Canada's support does not end at Mali's borders. Canada has a long history of assisting our friends in Africa. In fact, last year, nearly half of CIDA's assistance focused on sub-Saharan Africa. In 2011-2012, Africa received 62% of our total food security program, 60% of our agricultural support and 63% of our health support. These are significant numbers.

Canada is a leader in food security. We are the first G8 country to deliver on its L'Aquila food security commitment. Our government has untied food assistance.

As recently as 2007, over half of Canadian food assistance to developing countries had to be purchased in Canada. Tied aid is not effective and it is not efficient.

We are focusing on achieving results for taxpayer investments. Tied aid undermines the ability of developing nations to produce or buy goods for themselves and delays the assistance from reaching the people who so desperately need it.

That is why our Conservative government untied all food aid in 2008 and set 2012-13 as the deadline for fully untying the goods and services delivered through Canadian aid programs. Through our support, 7.8 million chronically food insecure people have been given food in Ethiopia, for example. Over 1.3 million people in Mali have been given emergency food and nutrition assistance. These are results.

We work with African countries both bilaterally and regionally. At the heart of Canada's approach is our support for African-led solutions to development challenges and regional problems. We support major global and multilateral organizations that work in Africa, notably the African Union, the African Development Bank, the UN World Food Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

With our assistance, African countries have made significant progress on a number of fronts in recent years. We know that issues like drought, disease and conflict do not respect national borders. That is why we are taking a regional approach with regard to our assistance in Mali.

Last February, for example, Canada answered an emergency appeal from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This helped to provide essential items, such as blankets, kitchen sets, shelter and sanitary supplies to Malians who had fled to Niger, Burkina Faso and Mauritania. In that same month Canada provided support to the International Red Cross to deliver household items and hygiene kits as well as food to some 600,000 people, including populations in the north of Mali where the needs were greatest and the risks were highest.

We took further steps this past summer. In August Canada made a contribution to the World Food Programme. This helped to provide food and nutrition assistance to Malian refugees in Niger, Mauritania and Burkina Faso.

Members know that we stood shoulder to shoulder with our friends in the Sahel region, by creating the Sahel crisis matching fund in response to an escalating food security and nutrition crisis in the region. As part of the matching fund initiative, CIDA allocated funds for the provision of emergency food in the region.

Canada has been a strong friend to the people of Mali and the Sahel region and we continue to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable, particularly women and children.

Just last week at the donors' pledging conference in Ethiopia, the Minister of International Cooperation announced additional assistance for a number of initiatives aimed at addressing pressing humanitarian needs.

We will not abandon Mali. We have collaborated with committed partners in the country for a long time. We are drawing on this expertise now to support work on the front lines. We will continue to stand with the people of Mali in their time of need.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Chair, my colleague talked about textbooks being given to Mali in order for school children to have opportunities. It is very personal for me because for the last 10 years my family has supported a little girl in Mali through World Vision. Her name is Tolatta Togo. Tolatta has the opportunity to go to school.

Could my colleague comment on how Canada's contribution will help girls like Tolatta to get an education?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, education is a key focus of our development efforts, not only in Mali but across the African continent. Supporting education is critical to helping to build a strong society, to helping to give children and youth the tools they need to succeed in their respective societies. This is just one example where Canada, through our international development agency, CIDA, is having a direct positive impact on the people of Mali, particularly on its children in this case.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and all members for participating in this debate.

I deplore many things, especially the fact that no minister has spoken since we began this debate. I cannot say whether or not the ministers were present, as that would be unparliamentary. However, I can say that they did not participate. That says a lot about the government's minimalist approach: do as little as possible and claim, like many others have, that there is no need to do much more. That has been illustrated throughout this debate at every angle.

Will the member undertake to have his government and his ministers ensure that Canada upholds its reputation and gives Mali much more help than is currently being provided? Why has the Minister for La Francophonie not said a word in this debate, as though it was not important for Canada to be a member of la Francophonie?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I certainly reject the premise of the question. Our Prime Minister has shown significant leadership with respect to Africa. The child and maternal health initiative is the pride of all Canadians. It is a signature Canadian initiative that is making an incredible mark on the world, saving the lives of women and children primarily in the continent of Africa.

In terms of the leadership of our Minister of International Cooperation, a number of months ago we established a matching fund so that Canadians who donated to the Sahel crisis would have their donations matched. More recently, our minister was in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, where he pledged additional Canadian support for humanitarian efforts in Mali. That is leadership.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening we heard a lot from the opposition about how the Canadian government has somehow abandoned Africa, and yet statistics show that since the time that the Liberal member who just asked the question was a minister in the Canadian government, the Government of Canada has doubled its assistance to Africa. Last year nearly half of all CIDA's assistance was focused on sub-Saharan Africa. In 2011-12, Africa received 62% of the agency's total food security programming, 60% of its agricultural support and 63% of its health support.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those statistics and say why he thinks the opposition is confused about the Canadian government's commitment to Africa.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, that is a question that I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer and one that is really a patently unfair notion with respect to our government.

I am the vice-chair of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, and I know a bit about our government's commitment to Africa. We were the first G8 country to fulfill our commitment to double aid to Africa. That is leadership.

I mentioned earlier the Prime Minister's initiative on child and maternal health, which benefits primarily women and children in Africa. We have untied food aid, which is a particularly significant initiative.

Let me briefly explain one important initiative that pertains to my own riding of Kitchener—Waterloo, to which our government provided strong support. Through the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, the next Einstein initiative has the goal of finding the next Einstein in Africa.

Supporting Africans, helping Africans find the solutions they need to their own challenges, that is leadership.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Chair, frankly, if France had not intervened in Mali, al-Qaeda would have control of a west African country, with all the risks that represents. Fortunately, the French intervened.

Instead of always trying to minimize Canada's role, it would be nice if the Prime Minister of Canada would say that Canada will be there to offer the logistical support required, without necessarily sending in troops, since the French are capable are freeing these towns on their own. Helping does not just involve sending in a plane for a week and then being forced to lend it for a few more weeks. The Prime Minister should have said that Canada would intervene.

The government was so proud to say that we would play a role in Afghanistan and so proud of providing $350 million in assistance to Libya. That is what the intervention in Libya cost. There is talk of offering Mali a minimum of $13 million. The Conservatives are always doing the minimum. I do not understand why the government changed in this regard. It is true: the government does the minimum. It does as little as possible.

In my opinion, the government needs to wake up and take strong action when it comes to democracy, humanitarian aid, logistic support and the training of African troops. That is what we should be doing.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am somewhat surprised by the question. I know my hon. colleague has been here for this evening's discussion and debate, but it seems as if perhaps he did not listen.

Our government has made significant investments in the country of Mali. We have been involved in international development efforts in Mali since 1962. In 2010-11 we contributed over $110 million. Our commitment remains very strong.

We want to see the return to democracy in Mali and we support those efforts. The French effort, the military effort, is unfolding as we speak and it is progressing well. We need to let that situation continue to unfold. It is going in the right direction. We look forward to a full return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in the country of Mali.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this topic in the waning hours of the day and this debate.

I am deeply concerned about the conflict in Mali and the resulting instability in the region. I am also concerned about what Canada's role should be if and when this conflict escalates.

The message the government has been sending on Mali, and on Africa in general, has been rather contradictory. Unfortunately, it is consistent with the expressed mantra of the government to reduce Canada's presence on the African continent, thereby eroding Canada's effectiveness, and as a result, Canada's esteem and validity as a global actor, through disengagement.

Disengagement means less of an understanding of the issues that affect countries individually, be it on the African continent or in any other country around the world. Disengagement leaves us in a world of ignorance. This should be cause enough for concern, but disengagement also is noticed.

There may be little concern for Canada's international reputation, as is witnessed by our withdrawal from international climate treaties, our alienation of our traditional partners, and in most recent months, the rather puzzling approach to international development. The government may not concern itself with our international reputation, but Canadians do, and they do notice. Canadians understand that we live among one another within a global community.

On diplomacy, our country is stronger when it works with long-standing partners and allies and respects and encourages a dialogue with potential future partners.

On international development, we must work hard to recapture the role we once held as a global leader in international development, which has been lost through the myopic ideology of cost first and common sense later, an ideology that undermines the ability of our diplomats and our aid workers to do their jobs.

The closing of embassies on the African continent has left gaping holes in Canada's international identity, and as important, our ability to properly monitor ongoing security issues as well as human rights abuses, which are both clearly at play in Mali today.

We intervened in Libya alongside our allies but failed to anticipate the stream of mercenaries flowing out of Libya to their home countries, including northern Mali, accompanied by very high-powered weapons that are being used against others today.

As I only have three minutes, and I have only been able to begin our discussion, I will leave it at that point. Maybe at a future date we can continue this very important discussion on Mali.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 12:01 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53(1), the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.