Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Conflict in Mali

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, I hope our colleague from Ottawa Centre might expand on his assertion, which he touched on briefly in his comments, with respect to the government's overall approach with respect to the African continent.

The Liberal Party believes the government has by and large turned its back on Africa. It is not interested in developments socially, economically or culturally that have taken place in Africa. We have closed consulates and embassies. We have reduced Canada's presence on the African continent. Obviously now we are dealing with a very difficult and real threat posed by the extremists in Mali and with the possibility of spreading to other regions of that continent.

Could the member for Ottawa Centre, who has considerable experience in foreign affairs, share with the House and Canadians his view on the government's failure to engage in a broad dialogue with partners in Africa in a way that we would have much more influence than we do arriving at the last minute when, as he said, the house is on fire, trying to work with others to help put out the fire?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the best way to understand the government's approach to Africa is to remember a very historic foreign affairs committee meeting when African ambassadors came to our committee. This was very unusual. They came because they had not been consulted when their countries' budgets had been cut. It was a basic communication. I know the government would say that it did not cut as much as they were suggesting, but it was a matter of just understanding that to have a relationship and a respectful they had to be engaged. The fact that right now we have a government that is more focused on trade deals in Africa than dealing with the present crisis underlines it all.

Finally, we also have to understand that this is about how our country is represented not just in Africa. What is Japan contributing? Over $100 million when we contributed $13 million. In case members of the government side did not understand, Japan does not have the same historic relationship we have had with the region or the country.

It is a matter of does the government want to deal with the situation in a historic Canadian way or will it just do it on the seat of its pants? As I said, it seems to be a government that is guided by drift.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, my NDP colleague and his party want to keep throwing money at Africa. They apparently think entering into trade agreements is not the right thing to do. They talked about Nigeria being on fire. Nigeria is not on fire today.

The Minister of International Trade recently visited Nigeria and Ghana on a very successful trade mission. It was unrelated to the crisis in Mali. We believe the solution to Africa is to help these people build their economies, to give them a hand up not just a handout.

The NDP wants to keep shovelling money into Africa. That has not worked. We want to build trade, jobs and prosperity for the African people. That is what Canada and this government are doing.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member's question displays in graphic detail the problem with the government. I gave an analogy that a part of the region of Africa was on fire and that it was not the time to talk about trade deals as the solution, which is what happened when we asked their own officials at committee. We asked what the government was doing right now in Africa. The response was that the minister was on a trade mission in both Nigeria and Ghana. That was not the question. The question was what the government was doing right now about the region that needed our help. It does not need the Minister of International Trade negotiating a trade deal. That is for later. Today it is about helping the people of Mali.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, my colleague put his finger on the problem when he said that ever since this government came to power in 2006, CIDA has really turned its back on Africa.

Would he not agree that ideology is what is behind all this? The Minister of International Cooperation himself has said and done things that fly directly in the face of what Canada has always done in the area of international aid, particularly in Africa and especially francophone Africa.

That is what is happening in Mali right now. I think we need to do more in tonight's debate than simply criticize this laxness. This is a clear, deliberate reflection of this government's ideology, as the Conservatives themselves have said. The Minister of International Cooperation has said so. They treat international aid as though they are doing business. Their priority should of course be to eliminate poverty. However, assistance to Mali at this time is woefully inadequate, probably because of the Conservative government's new ideology.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to watch the government in terms of how it applies what in fact is the mandate of CIDA, and that is to alleviate poverty, et cetera. It seems to be going down the path of wanting to support private enterprise, which we have no problem with, but whose private enterprise? Are we there to support our private enterprise or the private enterprise of the people in the region?

The Conservatives have changed their programs away from what we have considered the mandate of CIDA to look to support Canadian enterprise in other countries. Not only does that suggest ideology, it is really bad public relations when we are trying to help a country and what we are offering is support for Canadian enterprise and not private sector people on the ground in those countries we are trying to help.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the government has given us the opportunity to have this discussion tonight. I want the Canadian public to know that the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition on this subject and I also had a chance to speak with him as well.

From the Prime Minister's comments in our one discussion, and I had a couple of discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had a sense of deep caution on the part of the government. I had a sense that it was looking for support and a broad consensus in the House of Commons as to what would be appropriate for Canada to do.

I will tell the House what I told the Prime Minister. I said that we live in a shrinking world. We live in a world where violence in one corner, whether it is Timbuktu, Gao, Kabul or anywhere in the world, places that perhaps Canadians 15 or 20 years ago would have said what did it matter if people were killing each other in some place that seemed to be far away. The answer to that simple question is, it matters a lot, not only morally, not because we are morally connected to what goes on in the entire globe, but because our interests, our security interests are directly affected. We cannot afford to be narrow, isolationist or small minded about how we look at problems in places far away, so we have to avoid thinking in that way.

We also have to avoid thinking ideologically. It was the great Conservative, Edmund Burke, who said once that there was no greater menace than to govern in the name of a theory. We cannot govern in the name of a theory. We cannot say that we think Latin America is more important to us than Africa, which the Conservatives did say. They said that they would concentrate more on one part of the world than another.

We cannot afford to say that we will not fall in with the United Nations, that we will do it on our own. The reality is we do these things together.

Yes, the government has been very careful to say it will give the French a cargo plane for a week. What if the conflict lasts more than a week? What if it lasts beyond February 15? The parliamentary secretary says that we will find out. Yes, we will find out. Therefore, I do not know why the Government of Canada would not say that it takes this conflict seriously and that it will keep its plane running as long as it feels it is necessary to protect the security of Mali, to protect the security of West Africa, to protect the security of Canada and to protect the security of the world. Why would we not take that position?

I am not suggesting that we should consider free trade as unimportant, because how could we make Africa safer, then? We cannot look at safety and terrorist cells in Africa without also considering Africa's prosperity.

Africa's prosperity and economic success has obvious links with the political context and the safety of populations, as we know. We cannot export a blueprint for democracy the same way we export cars or minerals.

I believe that some ideas and values are universal, such as freedom, freedom of speech, equality and the need to respect the dignity of every person. But the most vital and critical issue at stake is safety and terror. We need to say it, we need to say the word out loud. We should not be afraid to say that there is terrorism involved.

Terrorism is a problem not only in Africa, but around the world.

The organization responsible for the worst human rights abuses in Northern Mali has been labelled a terrorist organization not only by the United States, but also by the UN.

We have seen an important evolution in international governance and international law. We now have a situation where the United Nations is naming non-governmental organizations that are a threat to the stability and security of the world. We should not think that this list is limited, or that it will not find itself in some other part of the globe over the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. We do not know.

President Obama gave a great inauguration speech, but he said one thing with which, personally, I disagree. When he said a decade of war is over, I can only say, with great respect to the president, that we do not know that. We should not assume that, knowing how dangerous the world has become. Nor should we say that we will deal with this in an ideological fashion, or that we think that there is a military solution to everything.

I know the parliamentary secretary is going to be on his feet saying, “Should there be Canadian boots on the ground”? We know there are special forces now in Mali. I have said publicly that I have no objection to that. If it is necessary for special forces to be there to protect Canadian interests, then they should be there. We should not be shy about that.

However, we also need to understand, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre pointed out, that it is a complex situation. It is security. It is democracy. It is an issue that goes right across north Africa. Therefore, we need a comprehensive approach.

The government seems to have a philosophy, which was once associated with a former leader of my party, Mackenzie King, of whom it was said he would never do by halves what he could do by quarters. I would hope that the government would not be quite so cautious. I would hope that the government would explain to Canadians why these things are connected, why a country, which many people could not even place on a map, nor could they name the countries that surround it, is important to the world and is important to Canadian interests. If there is instability in Mali, there is instability in Mauritania. We have two distinguished Canadian diplomats who spent 133 days captured by terrorist forces. Are we going to sit around here and say we do not really think these are critical interests?

My view is that we should be very clear. We support the United Nations, not in some kind of blanket way that says whatever the UN says or does is right, but when the United Nations Security Council says there is an interest, Canada should take an interest.

It is interesting that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was explaining to reporters the other day why Canada was not able to do more in Syria. What did he say? He said there is no Security Council resolution that would allow us to do more. Now we have a Security Council resolution, which is why I say Canada should not be so timid. We should not be so reserved. We should be supporting. As the parliamentary secretary said, it should be African led.

I said that to the Prime Minister. I said that to have a mass of Canadian troops going in would not necessarily be the wisest course, but nor should we reject the principle that we can train, we can be present and we should never say on a blanket basis that there will never be a Canadian troop in Mali. That is not sensible.

We have to take steps against terror and, to put it in colloquial language, we have to whack them back. We have to give them a disincentive to violence, a disincentive to terror and a disincentive to punishing their own people. We have to recognize the regional nature of this and also, potentially, the long-term nature of this. We need a strategy of which we can be proud.

We are not doing as well as we could. We are not doing as well as we should. We are not doing as well as we have done in the past and we are not doing as well as we should be doing in the present. However, I still appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate and look forward to the questions and comments from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the interim leader of the Liberal Party for his speech and his acknowledgment that this debate is happening tonight because the Prime Minister took the opportunity to reach out to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party to build a broad consensus of Canadians and parliamentarians about what Canada ought to be contributing in Mali.

I have to say I am a little surprised by what I am hearing. It is unusual. If most people listening to this debate heard the hawkish comments coming from across the aisle about whacking the enemy, they would think it was coming from this side of the House. It is actually coming from over there, which I find interesting.

I do not know where the call is coming from to have Canadian troops in Africa. In fact, right now Canada is doing the same thing as the British and the Germans. We are supplying heavy lift transport aircraft to our allies, the French, who have a long-term interest and experience in the region. They have bases in the region. They are fighting a very successful mission. They pushed the rebels out of the cities. As far as we know, it is going very well. There is no need at this point for Canada to send its troops to Africa. We are doing what they are asking us to do. If and when they ask us to do something more, we will certainly consider it.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary is saying that to say we need to whack them back is hawkish, but to support the French, who are whacking them back, is what? Baby hawkish, sparrow light, hawk light? What is the hon. member talking about? It is ridiculous.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, my friends in the New Democratic Party are also supporting what the French are doing. My friends in the New Democratic Party are also taking the position that we should not just say we will give them a plane for a week, or maybe give it to them for two weeks. We are saying if our allies need a plane, we are there to support them. If they need training, we are there to support them. If the United Nations African-led mission needs support, we are there to support them.

The parliamentary secretary says Canada is doing the same as the Germans and the British. The British and the Germans are supporting the United Nations force. They are giving money to the United Nations for the work they are doing. We are not doing that. We are giving $13 million in humanitarian aid out of a package of $65 million, which has already been frozen.

On the question of democratic development, let me say this. It is a subject about which I care quite a bit. Canada is the only country now in the OECD that does not have a comprehensive program for democratic development around the world. The Europeans have established an enormous endowment to fund their work in support of democracy. The Americans have had it for a generation. We developed it with Rights & Democracy and then the Conservatives blew it up. Canada needs a strategy for democratic development.

Let me say to the parliamentary secretary, where is Canada going to be in support of the election process? That is where we need to be. That is what we need to be doing.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, the member for Toronto Centre raised some good points, but I think we need to dig a little deeper.

What is going on in Mali was foreseeable. When NATO intervened in Libya, everyone fled to Mauritania, Algeria and, primarily, Mali. That is why this crisis has exploded in Mali. A strategy is needed to avoid having the same thing happen in Mali and having everyone to flee to Niger. That would be dangerous, because there is uranium in Niger and Mauritania.

There is no military strategy, and the country has never had one. Intervention is done on an as-needed basis. It is as though the government finds out about conflicts in the newspaper like everyone else. Something is not working. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will do my best but I do not really have enough time to answer the question.

I agree with my colleague when he said that these things are related. That was the first point that I wanted to get across at the beginning of my speech. We cannot look at these situations as being completely isolated from the reality of the region and more distant realities.

There are repercussions on the situation in Algeria, the situation in Libya and the situation throughout the region. We therefore have to develop a strategy that recognizes that there is a security problem, a military problem, a development problem, a democracy problem and a prosperity problem. These problems are all related.

At the end of the day, Canada must not exaggerate what it can do, but it must also not diminish the role that it can play, as my colleague Senator Dallaire said yesterday evening on the CBC. He clearly said that we need a humanitarian strategy in order to help enforce international laws anywhere in the world, particularly where we are aware of security risks.

We have seen it. The French are going into big cities and have had some amount of success. However, we have to learn how guerrilla warfare works. We have to understand that people will go into the mountains and into rural areas but that they will still be there. They will not disappear. They will cross international borders. That is why we need a regional, military, political and economic strategy.

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

Mr. Chair, Major-General Vance was asked at the committee meeting last week what Canada's military goal was. After some hesitation, he said essentially that our military goal is to support France. He was not able to state what our military goal is and so by default it appears that our military goal is France's military goal and France's military goals are ours.

Similarly, Canada has been asked to support the African-led initiative pursuant to a UN resolution, but we have not responded. Therefore, we are in this situation of adopting another nation's military goals and not responding to the United Nations' request for funding for AFISMA.

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, my disagreement so far with the government is that I think it is too reluctant to recognize that once the French initiative takes on its leadership role and does what it has to do, clearly the next plan is to transfer as much responsibility as we can to the African-led force and the UN-led force.

Also, this is not the only region in Africa that faces a tremendous crisis in security. Congo, East Africa and the entire hub down from Sudan right through to Tanzania is an area of conflict and great violence where the UN has been involved. However, Canada has not been engaged, not even financially, in a sufficient way in terms of training and having a strategy.

We live in a world where we need a strategy for every region. We need a strategy for international organizations that are also trying to do the job. That is the approach we need to take, not one where we ask how little we can get away with or how much rhetoric we can use to denounce violence and extremism, which are things that the Conservative government is excellent at.

I would imagine the Minister of Foreign Affairs has put out more press releases in the last two years than any minister of foreign affairs in the history of western civilization. However, that is not the question. I congratulate him for it. John Kennedy once wrote a book called Profiles in Courage. The minister shows a whole lot more profile than he does courage, when it comes to saying where we are actually going to get the things done that we need to do.

It requires a greater understanding of working within the framework of the UN and the African Union, being supportive and looking at training. It requires having a strategy that is military, security-based, democracy-based and one that is not afraid to talk about prosperity and the economy. All those things have to be part of the broad strategy.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the House for the opportunity to discuss our support for the people of Mali during this troubled period in their country's history.

Before I tell the House about Canada's response to help those affected by the crisis in Mali and the wider Sahel region, I want to explain why Canada's development and humanitarian work is important to Canadians.

Canada is a compassionate neighbour. When there is a need, Canada responds. We are ready to lend a hand to help those in need. Freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law are Canadian values. These values drive our government's engagement in the international community. These values are the keys to help struggling nations reach their full potential.

When a drought leads to famine and widespread human suffering, we respond, as we did in the Horn of Africa in 2011 and the Sahel region of Africa last year. When a conflict and instability scatter communities and endanger lives, we respond, as we are doing in Mali right now. We do this by delivering lifesaving assistance in the quickest, most efficient way possible, providing food, shelter and medical support to the most vulnerable.

In 2010-2011 alone, the Canadian International Development Agency responded to 40 natural disasters in the developing world and answered 68 calls for help in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East.

When we help countries stabilize and secure their societies, we help prevent violence and criminal activity from spilling over Canadian shores. When we help countries practice good governance, we advance freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Mali is one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. It ranked 175th out of 187 countries in terms of human development in 2011. In practical terms, that means just over half of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day. Mali's infant and maternal mortality, disease and malnutrition rates are significant. Nearly three-quarters of the country's citizens can neither read nor write.

Despite such challenges, prior to the coup Mali was a positive example of democracy in the region for more than 20 years. It had a vision for how to reduce poverty and develop the country. Up until the coup it was putting that plan into action.

In recognition of these efforts, CIDA selected Mali as a country of focus in 2009. Over the years CIDA's projects in Mali, aimed at reducing poverty, improving the health of women and children and increasing access to education, have all achieved considerable success.

In 2010, CIDA helped to provide primary students with more than 1.2 million new textbooks. The textbook industry in Mali, which our assistance helped to establish, saved the ministry of education about $850,000 by repairing and extending the lifetime of textbooks.

Between 2007 and 2010, Canada's contributions to saving the lives of women and children in Mali helped to increase the rate of assisted childbirths by 2%. Two percentage points may not sound like much, but to all of those mothers who survived a difficult labour and gave birth to a healthy baby, those two percentage points were the difference between life and death.

During this same period 92% of children under the age of one were vaccinated for five childhood diseases.

This is why it is so troubling to witness the deterioration of security and stability in Mali. It is the consequence of terrorist networks seeking ripe opportunities to exploit the most vulnerable.

The establishment of a safe haven for terrorist groups in this region is a threat to the broader international community. As the Prime Minister noted on January 8, “The development of essentially an entire terrorist region in the middle of Africa is of great concern to everybody in the international community”.

As members know, Canada suspended its government-to-government assistance to Mali after the coup. However, to be clear, Canada is still very much engaged in helping the people of Mali during this uncertain time. CIDA continues to help those in need through NGOs and multilateral organizations by supporting education, health care and working with farmers to reduce food insecurity.

Where security permits and access has been possible, we have continued to deliver humanitarian assistance through our international partners, who are all working hard to meet the most pressing needs of Mali's most vulnerable people, particularly women and children. We call on all parties to provide full access so that humanitarian needs and the safety and protection of humanitarian workers can be addressed.

Humanitarian agencies report that an estimated two million Malians are food insecure or are at risk of food insecurity. More than 385,000 people have been displaced by this conflict, including more than 236,000 within Mali itself, and another 153,000 who have sought refuge in Burkina Faso, Niger and Mauritania. Our partners on the ground tell us that refugees have arrived in these neighbouring countries exhausted, hungry and in need of basic services such as shelter, medical care, food and water.

Through Canada's support, emergency food and nutrition assistance have been provided to an estimated 1.3 million people throughout Mali, as well as refugees in neighbouring areas. Our assistance is also helping 3,000 vulnerable households access food and other basic necessities through cash transfer and cash-for-work initiatives. Our assistance has helped more than 39,000 Malian children gain treatment for severe acute malnutrition.

Canada is also providing support to ensure that Malian refugees receive essential items such as blankets, kitchen sets, shelter and sanitary supplies. Our support has allowed the international Red Cross movement to distribute essential household items and hygiene kits as well as food to an estimated 600,000 people affected by the conflict. This assistance is on top of the Government of Canada's matching funding for the Sahel crisis.

This matching funding addressed the overall food and nutrition problems in the Sahel region, and the people of Mali receive lifesaving assistance as part of the initiative. Between August 7 and September 30, individual Canadians donated more than $6.9 million to help people in the Sahel. Our government complemented this generosity dollar for dollar.

Last week, at the donors pledging conference in Ethiopia, the Minister of International Cooperation announced that Canada is providing an additional $13 million for a number of initiatives aimed at addressing pressing humanitarian needs. We are closely monitoring the situation and responding to the needs of vulnerable Malians as they arise, particularly for women and children.

Development assistance delivered through multilateral organizations and non-governmental organizations is helping to ensure that critical services continue to be available in southern Mali. This type of support is critical to avoiding social unrest in the south and to stabilizing the country. A stable south means more efforts can be concentrated on the security situation in the north.

While the conflict persists, our government will work hard to protect Mali's hard-won development gains, while doing everything we can to meet the country's immediate humanitarian needs and contribute to maintaining social stability in the south.

Our response reflects Canadian values. These values guide our very way of life and have earned us our exemplary global reputation for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Canada will continue to do right for those in need.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary mentioned a number of important things the government is doing, and also intending to do. Everyone who sees what is happening in Mali and the region understands that a long-term commitment is required. The government has said on many occasions that it has committed more than $100 million over the last couple of years to Mali. That is fine, but there seems to be a lack of a strategy for the region.

As we have said before on this side of the House, to actually make a difference in the region we must have long-term commitments from Canada that are seen by everyone as predictable. However, we have seen cuts to our countries of focus in Africa and decided to withdraw some of our other assets from Africa.

Would the member agree that this comes at a cost? If she does not, where does she see us going in Africa if we have a regional crisis like we have in Mali? In this regard, she mentioned the food crisis. That is something that does not go away overnight.

I do not understand how the government can say on the one hand that it intend to do all of these great things, but on the other hand withdraw resources. If we are withdrawing resources, does the member or the government not understand that it undermines not only our capacity but also our credibility?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have not reduced our funding to Africa. In fact, our government has doubled Canada's support to Africa. Most importantly, we have untied our aid to Africa, giving them far more freedom to make choices in how they can access the food and products they need at a better cost. Let us be very clear on that point, first of all.

When we look at the regional issues, before the Sahel drought even started, Canada was aware that a situation was developing. We were there with $42 million to help preempt the situation we saw happening in the Horn of Africa the year before, to ensure that food security would be taken care of and to put some long-term planning in place so that those things would not happen.

The coup and the conflict in Mali were unforeseen by anyone. However, we are there, helping the Malian people with humanitarian aid right now. We have been there in the past with $110 million, year over year, that Canada has contributed to help Mali be a country that is growing and developing good governance.

One of the things that Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Hon. member, we appreciate that, but we need to move on with other questions and comments.

We appreciate that hon. members all want to participate, and I would ask hon. members to keep their comments and responses to around a minute or so, if they can.

Questions and comments.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to see if I can get more precision on the numbers that we hearing.

I heard that Canada's annual contribution to Mali was $90 million, but now I hear it is $110 million. It was frozen after the coup.

First, how much of that has not been spent? If it is not spent this fiscal year, what will happen to it?

Second, with respect to the $13 million that was announced by the Minister of International Cooperation last Tuesday in Addis Ababa at the UN-convened meeting, does it come from that pool of money, or is it fresh money coming from somewhere else? If so, where?

To get a precise picture of the aid that is being given, I would appreciate it if we could get some precision on those numbers.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for that question. We were actually in Africa together two weeks ago. We have been in West Africa on previous Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association trips and have seen some of the issues as they have unfolded.

To answer the member's question, Canada has been contributing $110 million per year to Mali. That money is frozen at the moment because we are not going to give that money to an unelected government. We will wait until the elections take place, and then we will reconsider how we will go forward with that pool of money.

The $13 million that was announced in Addis Ababa last week by the Minister of International Cooperation is indeed new money that CIDA is contributing to humanitarian aid.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions.

My first question relates to some remarks the parliamentary secretary just made. In committee, witnesses from CIDA told us that, even though the Mali government was not receiving any more direct support, most of that money had been redirected to grassroots non-governmental organizations. The parliamentary secretary seems to be saying something totally different. I would like some clarifications.

Also, will the parliamentary secretary admit that the last budget slashed CIDA's funding by $377 millions, and that these cuts mostly affect African countries?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am happy to repeat that we have actually doubled our aid to Africa. The money that is going into Africa today far exceeds that from any previous government in Canada. Doubling that money is only one component.

The second, as I already said in a previous answer, is that we have untied our aid to Africa. That gives freedom to African countries to make use of that money to buy the products they need, perhaps food or pharmaceuticals. They are able to access those products at far better prices from other places in the world. Therefore, untying our aid has given great freedom to Africa to benefit far more from the money we are contributing.

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

Mr. Chair, this has been a very important debate and will continue to be for some more hours.

I want to ask my hon. colleague this. There is something in the history of how these rebel forces in Mali got hold of so many weapons, and the trail seems to lead to Libya, where some of the people whom we supported in the effort to get rid of Colonel Gadhafi opened up warehouses and shipped large amounts of weapons to al-Qaeda forces. Some of the people we supported in Libya were in fact themselves previous al-Qaeda fighters.

How do we learn from this? How do we ensure that in future when we enact, under the responsibility to protect, the need to go in to protect the civilian population, we do not inadvertently side with people who are prepared to turn warehouses full of weapons into a flow of arms to terrorists who will of course allow conflict to spill into areas that had previously been peaceful?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, what we have heard from officials is the suspicion that many of the weapons left long before the conflict in Libya even started or was finished.

I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition, though, who actually said on January 15 on CBC Power and Politics:

I don't see the link necessarily between our intervention in Libya, which was a UN mandate directly to NATO based on the UN charter, protection of civilians who were being attacked by their own government. It's too indirect.

What he is trying to allege as a link to Mali would judge Mali on its merits and look at information put on table if need be, so we are not sure there is a link there.