FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I would like to call this meeting of the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee of the House to order.

This morning we have with us a series of witnesses to brief the committee on the situation in Sudan. We are pleased to have Sandelle Scrimshaw with us from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I understand you are going to be the first speaker. You will lead off and give introductory comments and you will be followed by Prince Marciano Luwanla-Eli from the Equatorian People of the Sudan. I would like to welcome you to the committee.

The third speaker will be Mr. Gary Kenny from the Inter-Church Coalition on Africa. Mr. Kenny, good morning.

The fourth speaker will be Mr. Ron Robotham from the Roll'n Oilfield Industries in Red Deer.

We have appearing before us, as well, Mr. Mel Middleton.

I have also a brief that I am going to file on behalf of the Sudan Human Rights Organization, which is located in Toronto.

[Translation]

This document is not in both official languages, but I have asked the Bloc Québécois for permission to table it in English only. We will have it translated as quickly as possible.

[English]

Without any further introductions, Ms. Scrimshaw, perhaps you could begin.

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw (Director General, Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Some of you may be aware that in January 1991 a Canadian parliamentary delegation visited Sudan and came back reporting that the situation in the Horn of Africa was perilous, chronic and deteriorating. Sadly, that assessment in many ways holds constant today.

People in Sudan continue to suffer because of the chronic civil war. In parts of the south there are again prospects of famine on a massive scale.

• 0910

Over a million and a half people are estimated to have been killed in the last 15 years of this longest running, and yet in many ways forgotten, war. The conflict in Sudan is as complex as ever.

There is a role for Canada to play, but our ability to influence developments in the region is limited.

In the next few minutes I hope to outline for the committee the nature of the conflict, describe the humanitarian situation prevailing in Sudan, review the status of the peace process and, finally, discuss briefly the role that Canada is playing.

First I will speak on the nature of the conflict.

This country has been ravaged by civil war since independence in 1956. Indeed there has only been an 11-year period of peace, from 1972 to 1983. The latest fighting began in 1983 when then President Nimeiri tried to Islamize all of Sudan and imposed sharia law. This was opposed by several armed resistance movements in the largely black, Christian and animist south.

Resistance to the government was largely directed by John Garang's southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement.

The situation was further aggravated after a coup d'etat in 1989 brought to power the militant National Islamic Front government of General Omer al-Bashir with its radical religious agenda.

However, it is important to understand that the present conflict is more complicated than a clash between the northern Arabic culture and the sub-Saharan black African culture, as often portrayed in the media.

There is a south-south dimension to the conflict, pitting the Dinka-based SPLM against Riek Machar's Nuer-based Southern Sudan Independence Movement. Both ethnic groups are black and significantly Christian. The SSIM was formerly aligned with the SPLM and now is part of the government coalition fighting against the SPLM.

There is also a north-north political and theological conflict between the Islamic fundamentalist NIF and the more moderate Muslim elements.

Since 1996 northern elements opposed to the National Islamic Front have joined the SPLM in a loose opposition coalition known as the National Democratic Alliance.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a regional transnational conflict. Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda all consider themselves to be the victims of terrorist aggression launched by Khartoum, and in return they now support the NDA.

The first time that northern and southern opposition forces joined in combined operations was in December 1996 and early January 1997, when the opposition movements launched major attacks on the Sudanese government positions along Sudan's eastern borders.

By the end of May 1997, just over a year ago, NDA forces had taken control of the territory along Sudan's borders with Ethiopia and Eritrea. Other SPLM forces captured a string of cities and towns in southern Sudan and threatened to attack Juba, the major city in the south.

As of today, large parts of southern Sudan, with the exception of the major garrison towns, are under SPLM control.

As the civil war has intensified, so have human rights abuses increased. The various parties to the conflict are using food and humanitarian assistance as a military and political weapon of war. The stealing of cattle, the burning of food supplies and homes are part of the military campaign.

At present the fighting appears once more stalemated. There is, in our view, no military solution to this conflict.

Now I would like to say a word about the humanitarian situation in Sudan. Clearly, Sudan's deteriorating economy and the diversion of resources to the war effort, combined with the waves of refugees and displaced persons emerging from the conflict, have created a serious and now chronic humanitarian emergency.

The international community negotiated the creation of Operation Lifeline Sudan, OLS, a consortium of UN and non-governmental agencies working under a UN umbrella to provide emergency relief and rehabilitation for war-affected civilians in both the north and the south.

• 0915

The severe drought of 1997 and Sudanese government restrictions on the delivery of food relief supplies in the light of escalating rebel attacks has exacerbated the emergency situation in parts of southern Sudan.

The World Food Programme estimates the number of people requiring humanitarian food aid in the south to be in excess of 930,000, of which 595,000 are in hunger stricken Bahr-el-Ghazal. The situation is also serious in the Nuba Mountains.

The humanitarian plight has recently been eased because the Sudanese government lifted its restrictions on humanitarian access to the south and four Hercules and three Buffalo aircraft are now in service with OLS.

The most recent information from the World Food Programme would indicate that donor response has filled the food pipeline for the immediate future. Weather, however, will still be a determining factor in the success of the humanitarian response.

I would now like to say a word on the status of the peace process.

IGAD, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, is a sub-regional body that includes Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda. It launched a peace initiative in 1993. In 1994 there was optimism that the IGAD Declaration of Principles, which recommended the re-establishment of a secular system and a self-determination process for the south, would lead to an agreement.

A donor coordinating group, which is called the IGAD Partners Forum, of which Canada is a prominent member, offered encouragement and support to the IGAD mediation efforts, but made clear that the donor role was one of facilitation and not of mediation.

The viewpoint of the IGAD Partners Forum is that, first, the war is unwinnable by either side; second, there is no viable alternative to negotiations; third, human rights will continue to be violated so long as the war continues; and fourth, relief cannot be effectively delivered and development cannot take place until the war ends.

Unfortunately the IGAD peace talks under Kenyan chairmanship floundered because of the Sudanese government's refusal at that time to address the issue of secularism versus sharia law and self-determination. Three years later, at the July 1997 Nairobi IGAD Summit, Sudan accepted the IGAD Declaration of Principles, but only as a basis for discussion.

Since then progress in the talks has been patchy and painstakingly slow. Issues of a secular state, redefinition of borders and interim arrangements pending a referendum on self-determination have all been sticking points.

At the May 1998 talks, only about a month ago, agreement in principle was reached to hold a referendum on self-determination. But the details remain to be negotiated. There was no progress on the other outstanding issues and no agreement on a ceasefire called for by the Government of Sudan. The next round of negotiations is scheduled for August of this year.

I will now speak on the role that Canada is playing.

Canadian preoccupations in Sudan are threefold. First, we are concerned about the humanitarian and human rights situation prevailing in the country; second, the safety of Canadians in Sudan; and third, peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.

Canada has been a vocal critic of human rights violations in Sudan. We have made many representations, especially through our embassy in Addis Ababa, which is accredited to Khartoum. Canada is also a regular co-sponsor of resolutions at the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights condemning human rights abuses by all parties engaged in the civil war.

Because of human rights abuses in Sudan, Canada has maintained a ban on the sale of all military equipment to Sudan since 1991. Government-to-government bilateral development assistance has been suspended since 1992.

Because of the distress of the Sudanese people affected both by the civil war and natural disasters, Sudan has been a significant recipient of Canadian humanitarian assistance. Since 1990 CIDA has provided over $100 million in food aid and emergency humanitarian assistance to Sudan through NGOs and UN agencies operating under the OLS umbrella and the Red Cross.

Over the years Canada has put pressure on Sudan to facilitate access for OLS. Some areas remain closed due to ongoing fighting or because of restrictions imposed by the SPLM or by the Government of Sudan. The Secretary of State for Latin American and Africa, Mr. Kilgour, wrote to the Sudanese authorities in April of this year requesting that they allow unimpeded access for humanitarian assistance deliveries. Responding to international pressure from the international community, the Government of Sudan has eased its restrictions.

• 0920

Canada has also called on the Sudanese authorities to provide early approval for an OLS assessment team to visit the Nuba Mountains. And in direct response to the present emergency situation Canada has provided almost $6 million in humanitarian assistance since January of this year. That represents almost 10% of all the humanitarian assistance provided by CIDA.

We have told the parties to the conflict that until there is peace there cannot be sustainable development. Canada could eventually contribute, albeit modestly, to reconstruction when a peace settlement is reached.

There is also a consular dimension to our concern. Because of the ongoing civil war in the country, the department has for a number of years advised Canadian citizens to defer all travel to Sudan. A number of Canadian oil companies have chosen to work in the dangerous conditions prevailing in southern Sudan. Unfortunately the Canadian government has no legal means to prohibit their activities in Sudan. We have, however, repeatedly warned them of the risk to their personnel and advised the Sudanese opposition that the Canadian government would take very seriously any harm to Canadian citizens. We take warnings by the rebel groups seriously. These groups consider that productive oilfields are legitimate military targets and we have on numerous occasions expressed our concerns about this matter to the companies as well as directly to Canadian employees.

We are working very closely with the companies and with our mission to ensure that contingency plans are in place and we are actively monitoring the situation in the area.

With respect to peace and stability in the Horn of Africa, we are encouraging regional solutions to conflicts. We provided $2.5 million to the Organization of African Unity in support of its conflict resolution mechanism.

We are an active and founding member of the group of donor countries seeking to promote regional co-operation in the Horn of Africa, which is the IGAD Partners Forum to which I referred. In July 1997 Canada was part of a four-member IPF fact-finding mission that attended the IGAD Summit in Nairobi and met with all regional foreign ministers as well as leaders of the southern opposition to clarify the potential role of the international community in supporting the peace process.

We provided direct assistance to IGAD's mediation efforts by funding consultants, by providing $2.5 million for institutional and project-related support, including activities related to conflict prevention and management, and we have made $35,000 available specifically to the IGAD peace fund.

What are the next steps? First, we will continue to monitor closely developments in Sudan both from a humanitarian standpoint and from a human rights perspective. We will continue to maintain a dialogue with the Government of Sudan and with representatives of the opposition and make known our preoccupations for peace and stability in the Horn of Africa.

However, in light of the complexity of the situation in Sudan, we recognize that the scope for Canadian actions is limited. Only the people of the region can ensure a durable peace. Canada will continue to focus its energies on ensuring that the international community works together to support the peace process. We will also maintain pressure on all parties to the conflict to respect the principles of impartiality, neutrality and unrestricted access to humanitarian aid as well as to respect international human rights standards.

We will continue our dialogue with the private sector and with NGOs interested in Sudan. We will be monitoring developments and discussing further their ideas to contribute to peace in Sudan and dates are now being discussed for a Sudan round table.

Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank the standing committee for this opportunity to raise public attention to this terrible war in Sudan and the serious humanitarian situation in the country. Today I am accompanied by other representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Aubrey Morantz; Shig Uyeyama, as well as Mr. Don McMaster from CIDA and Mr. Marco Domaschio. We would be delighted to answer any questions you might have regarding Canadian government policy with respect to this country.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Scrimshaw.

Mr. Assadourian, you said that you wanted a clarification.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask for a clarification. I understand we have more than one oil company operating in Sudan, but we only have a witness from one oil company. Is there a reason they refused to come? They were invited and they refused to come?

• 0925

The Chairman: No, this was the only oil company that expressed an interest. It was my understanding that they were interested in coming and it was the only one we spoke to. But there might be others.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): There are others.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: My concern is that we might have to look at this in a narrow way, rather than looking at the overall situation.

The Chairman: We will make sure we watch that. This is not a stock market concern of yours. You are not worried about one of them getting an advantage over the other in terms of their listening or something like that.

Mr. Mills is the Calgary oilfields expert, so we'll make sure. Don't worry, we'll make sure we get all the information.

We have four more witnesses. If we could finish the witnesses by 10 o'clock, so we have a full hour to ask questions, that would be helpful. That is usually the best part of the dialogue. If the next four witnesses could try to keep their remarks to about 35 minutes, that would be helpful.

Prince Marciano Luwanla-Eli (Custodian of the Equatorian People of the Sudan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the standing members of the committee. May God bless each and every one of you.

The written history of Sudan started in the time of Pharaoh. Needless to say, when the Turko-Egyptian rule prevailed in Sudan, the nightmare of the native Sudanese people began. Slaves were being taken and ivory and gold were being looted.

When the Anglo-Egyptian rule began, the same thing continued for a while. The British tried to stop the bulk slave trade, but mistreatment of the southern Sudanese people by the Arabs continued unabated.

Trouble really started when the Juba conference of 1947 failed when it discussed the issue of self-rule for Sudan, and it was made worse in 1954 when the entire southern Sudanese was left out of the final conference in Cairo to decide independence for southern Sudan and Sudan in general.

When self-rule was granted and the entire administration of the Sudan was handed over to the northern Sudanese, immediately they started their Islamization and Arabization policies, which did not please any southern Sudanese. As a result, the British-trained southern Sudanese corps in the Equatoria district town of Torit mutinied, and hence the beginning of the civil war, which lasted until 1972, when an agreement was signed by Jospeh Lagu, the leader of the freedom fighters, and Abel Alier, a government representative, himself a southern Sudanese.

The same president who brought the above-mentioned agreement started abrogating it, first by trying to annex the Bentiu oilfields to the northern provinces and then by refusing to give back the southern county of Abei, coupled by the totalitarian way of governing the south by war. This fuelled the current inter-tribal, inter-ethnic and factional fighting which resulted in genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Because of the random aerial bombardment by the Khartoum government, fertile land like that of western Equatoria cannot be cultivated since people are hiding from the bombs and the artillery bombardment of the areas. This has resulted in a famine, devastating the population of the south, especially women and children who are malnourished. Many die of simple diseases that could be cured if help was given in time.

• 0930

We are therefore appealing and requesting the Government of Canada to look into human rights violations in the Sudan, especially the random imprisonment of the southern Sudanese both in the south and in the north, and the forced Islamization and Arabization of people of southern Sudan by use of relief food by Sudanese Red Crescent and Dawa Islamia agencies as a weapon to achieve their objectives; to allow the media, religious leaders and heads of governments who wish to visit the southern Sudan, displaced camps in Khartoum and in the south, and any areas affected by war, disease and famine to move freely without hindrance.

We also ask that the Government of Canada request the SPLM/A to look into the human rights violations in the liberated areas of the southern Sudan, especially the mistreatment, imprisonment and killing of other tribes in the south who might differ with their ideology; the imprisonment and killing of people suspected of spying and other minor crimes; not allowing media and agencies distributing relief food, medicine and clothing to go to all areas affected by war, disease and famine. Urge the international relief agencies, especially Canadian ones, to desist from being partisan in their help, whatever it is, to southern Sudanese ethnic groupings, wherever they may be in the liberated areas of the Sudan.

Having said that, we would like to bring to the attention of the Canadian government and the western world at large that without the full participation of the rest of the tribes and other freedom movements in Sudan, and particularly those in the south, in their struggle for freedom, justice and equality, peace will not be achieved easily without mass destruction and depopulation.

We are therefore appealing to the Canadian government to help in stopping an ugly situation developing right now in southern Sudan, which might lead to genocide and ethnic cleansing, by lobbying the U.S. government to influence the SPLM/A to freely allow other freedom movement groups like the PRM/A, Patriotic Resistance Movement and Army, led by Alfred Ladu Gore, whose soldiers at the moment are scattered all over refugee displaced camps in the south, full participation to operate freely in the liberation of the people of Sudan from the oppressive regime of Khartoum.

The above-mentioned chairman of PRM/A has a large following from southern Sudan, especially the Equatoria People of the Sudan, as well as a following from the Nuba Mountains and Ingessna Hill. Many defections to the Government of Khartoum from the SPLM/A are happening due to the mistreatment mentioned earlier in our report.

We are requesting the Canadian government to invite chairman Alfred Ladu Gore, who has been marginalized by the SPLM/A, to come and brief the Government of Canada on how he can be effective in bringing peace to Sudan, quickly and without ethnic cleansing and genocide of the people of southern Sudan and Sudan as a whole. Right now, as we speak to you, Alfred Ladu Gore is under house arrest and is not allowed communications from either inside Uganda or overseas.

We appeal to the Government of Canada to send someone to talk to Alfred Ladu Gore to confirm our allegations. We also request the Canadian government to try to lobby the Ugandan President not to be partisan, but instead to promote unity so that all southern Sudanese can participate in the fight against injustice in Sudan in order to bring to a fast end the suffering of the people of southern Sudan and Sudan in general.

• 0935

On the behalf of the custodian, we appeal to the Government of Canada to mediate peace between Uganda and the Sudan government.

We appeal to the Government of Canada to lobby the member states of the G-7 and the UN Security Council to impose an arms embargo on the Government of Sudan.

Last but not least, the Equatorian People of the Sudan would like to petition the federal government, opposition leaders and the provincial governments of Canada to help them realize the political goals that will benefit both Canada and a united Sudan. We, the people of Equatoria, believe that Canada is for unity and not for separation of countries. We shall promote the Canadian economy interest and sphere of influence in Sudan once peace is achieved.

God bless you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Garry Kenny (Inter-Church Coalition on Africa): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee today.

The Inter-Church Coalition on Africa, ICCAF, is an ecumenical organization formed in 1982 by mainline churches in Canada. ICCAF has a mandate to monitor and report on human rights situations in Sudan and other African countries. We work closely with Sudanese ecumenical partners who maintain extensive grassroots networks in Sudan. ICCAF considers that human rights and social justice are inextricably linked. In line with gospel teaching, ICCAF sides with oppressed African people who are denied their human rights and political and economic justice.

The Sudanese people have endured civil war for most of nearly 50 years. In the latest round, now in its 15th year, the UN estimates that 1.3 million people have died. Most have perished from war-induced or man-made famine. Recent TV images of famine in Sudan have documented more of this same phenomenon. Some 900,000 people in southern Sudan's Bahr-el-Ghazal region are currently at risk of starving to death. While drought has affected seasonal crop yields, it should not have led to famine. One of the largest and most sophisticated humanitarian relief operations in the UN's history, Operation Lifeline Sudan, is just a few hours away by air in northern Kenya.

Why then is there famine in Sudan? The reason is the war and, more particularly, the role food aid plays in the war. Bombs, bullets and landmines are the usual instruments of death associated with civil war, but in Sudan food is every bit as lethal a weapon as an AK-47 assault rifle.

Both the National Islamic Front, NIF, Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the SPLA, the main rebel group, have used food as a strategic weapon of war.

The NIF government, however, is by far the greatest perpetrator of this brutal strategy, which affects civilians far more than it does combatants. The Khartoum government's use of food as a weapon is systematic and widespread. It regularly prevents the UN and other relief agencies from delivering food to populations affected by war. It banned UN relief flights from reaching starving populations in Bahr-el-Ghazal for eight weeks in March and April, thereby increasing the severity of the current famine. It continues to restrict access to rebel-held areas in other parts of Sudan. For more than 10 years it has not allowed humanitarian agencies to deliver aid to hundreds of thousands of people displaced by war in Sudan's Nuba Mountain region.

The UN Commission on Human Rights has called the NIF government one of the worst violators of human rights in the world today. ICCAF shares this assessment. In addition to the use of food as a weapon, other gross human rights abuses include the imposition of an extreme form of Islam on all Sudanese, including Christians and Muslims; systematic aerial bombardment of civilian towns, hospitals and displaced people's camps; large-scale abduction of civilians; chattel slavery; and the use of rape as a weapon of war.

What kind of government would regard its own citizens with such utter disregard and contempt? Indeed, understanding the nature and orientation of the NIF is key to understanding the current war. It is also essential for the development of a foreign policy that is truly responsive and effective.

Since independence several political forces in Sudan have advocated the Islamization of the country. The NIF has been the most effective at propagating the cause of what has come to be called “Islamism”. The NIF came to power in a military coup in 1989 at a time when democracy was taking hold in Sudan. At its core, the NIF is opposed to principles of democracy and pluralism. In justifying its existence and trying to invest itself with legitimacy, the NIF made Sudan's longstanding political conflict in southern Sudan its rallying cry.

• 0940

The conflict was immediately Islamized. It was thrust upon the northern public imagination as a jihad, a holy war. Among Islamist images, jihad should be taken most seriously because it can lead to devastating results. Jihad can be either a war of self-defence or an aggression against others.

In its aggressive form, jihad is a negation of the other, a negation that can ultimately lead to annihilation, at best subjugation. This is the form jihad takes in Sudan.

Historically, Sudanese Islam was vibrantly pluralistic and inherently respectful of other religious traditions. The Islamism of the NIF, however, is inherently intolerant. It objectifies and depersonalizes those who represent difference. This is essentially the same Islamism that perpetrates hideous crimes in Algeria and banishes women from public places in Afghanistan.

The Islamism of the NIF is concerned not only with Sudan. When it came to power in 1989, the NIF announced its intention to use Sudan as a launching pad for Islamism in the entire African continent. Presently it supports destabilizing elements in neighbouring Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda, the governments of which now provide support to Sudanese rebels. As a result, there is a very real danger that the war in Sudan could become a regional conflict.

Despite the role played by Islamism, the war in Sudan is not ultimately about religion. Islamism is not religion in the classic sense of the term. It is an ideology born of fear and insecurity. In Sudan, Islamism has been combined with a drive for political and economic control of the country's considerable potential wealth in resources, including oil. Together they are a potent, virulent and deadly mix.

Nor is the war simply a conflict between north and south, Muslim and Christian, Arab and African. The scope of the present conflict at least is much more complex. The war in Sudan is now a national war. Sudanese of all regions, all religions and all cultures are increasingly resisting and uniting against the government in Khartoum.

The war in Sudan is not between equals. Southern Sudanese in particular have been the victims of economic, racial and cultural discrimination for decades. Successive central governments in Khartoum have denied them their fundamental human rights. The NIF regime has been the greatest oppressor through its declaration of jihad.

In the face of longstanding political and economic neglect, and now jihad, the war in Sudan is not without just cause. The Sudanese people have the right to live in a multiparty democratic state. They have the right to develop themselves economically and to raise their children in a secure environment. The protection of these rights is the reason why the people of southern Sudan created the SPLA and why, more recently, the people of northern Sudan created the Sudan Alliance Forces.

Unfortunately, the issue of just cause has been obscured, especially by political and ethnic splits among southern Sudanese that have led to violence. As a result, Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs tends to put the behaviour of rebel groups on an equal footing with that of the NIF government. This implicitly denies any sense of just cause in the war and confers on the Islamist regime a legitimacy it does not deserve.

It is true that the SPLA has committed human rights abuses that should not be tolerated under any circumstances. It is also true that the SPLA has significantly improved its human rights in the past few years. With external support in the form of capacity building, more improvements could be made. During the 1980s Canada chose to help another liberation movement fighting tyranny, the African National Congress, to develop democratic institutions and respect for human rights. Why not do the same for the liberation movements in Sudan?

By restoring a sense of perspective and proportion to the conflict in Sudan and its historical roots, Canada's contribution to the cause of peace could be more meaningful. Policy could be placed on a more productive track. In this context a round table should be held to explore new policy options. It should include Sudanese experts who understand and can articulate not only the history of civil conflict in Sudan but also the dynamics peculiar to the Sudanese Islamists.

There are many other ways that Canada can help to bring a just and lasting peace in Sudan. I want to briefly suggest four.

First, divisions among southern Sudanese must be seriously addressed. The resolution of political and ethnic conflicts in southern Sudan will have a stabilizing impact in the south and will greatly reduce the sense of insecurity that currently prevails. It will also prepare southern Sudanese for the future. Whether Sudan remains a unified state or is divided through secession of the south, unity among southerners is essential to the process of reconstruction and nation building. Canada's joint Foreign Affairs-CIDA peace-building fund is well situated to support initiatives in this area.

Second, CIDA should support reconstruction and development projects not only in government-controlled areas but also in areas under rebel authority, especially in southern Sudan. Historical underdevelopment and the ravages of war have left many communities without food, clean drinking water, hospitals, schools and other services.

• 0945

Third, the UN Commission on Human Rights has urgently called for the placement of independent human rights field monitors in Sudan. Human rights monitors would significantly reinforce respect for human rights and help bring security and stability to conflict-ridden communities, especially in southern Sudan. CIDA's new Horn of Africa capacity-building program could be a source of support for this initiative.

Fourth, Canada should convene a conference to study and make recommendations concerning the right of sovereignty of nations. While a huge and complex issue, the concept of right of sovereignty is in need of redefinition in the post-Cold War world, when most conflicts are intrastate in nature. By invoking right of sovereignty, human rights abusers like the Sudanese government can keep the international community at bay while they persecute, bomb and starve their citizens into submission at their will.

The definition of right of sovereignty should be changed and appropriate mechanisms established to make this behaviour more difficult. We believe Canada, known for its respect for and promotion of international human rights law, can and should take leadership on this issue.

Mr. Ron Robotham (Roll'n Oilfield Industries Inc.): Good morning. I am very pleased to have been invited here today.

I will provide you with some background of my involvement in the oilfield project in south central Sudan. I will describe my first-hand observations, including how we have seen this project impact on Sudanese people. I will explain our concerns and, finally, put forth some recommendations for this committee to consider.

I am the owner of Roll'n Oilfield, which is an oilfield service company that was started in 1977. Our customers are Canadian and international oil companies such as Petro-Canada, Pan Canadian, Arco, and the list goes on. We have a well-established business both in Canada and in Alaska. Since 1994 we have been involved in the oil project in Sudan that was started by Arakis Energy, a Canadian public company.

Roll'n employs some 60 Canadians in Sudan, and with Arakis and other contractors, we estimate there are approximately 83 Canadians on this project on any given day.

In 1994 Roll'n delivered the first rig to Sudan. In 1995 we delivered a second rig and in 1996 we provided two more rigs, one being dedicated to drilling water wells. Our investment there is in the millions of dollars. The project is owned by a consortium made up of the following: 40% by the Chinese National Petroleum Company; 30% by PETRONAS, a Malaysian oil company; 25% by Arakis; 5% by a Sudanese crown corporation. Other international oil companies also have made arrangements to explore for oil in Sudan, including Red Sea Oil and International Petroleum Corporation, both Canadian companies, and I believe there are more.

The oilfields are in a remote area, sparsely populated by nomadic people and a few villages. The wealth of these people, we find, is measured by the number of livestock they own.

We have noticed many significant changes since 1994. The project has provided many benefits to the local people, roads, water, medical services and jobs. A village has been established near our base camp and is supported by local markets that sell grain and handcrafted goods to passing Sudanese. Both Muslims and Christians live together at this village.

The oil companies are funding a hospital in the village, which is expected to be completed in the next six months, hopefully.

We employ about 125 Sudanese workers. Some Sudanese have been with us since we started in 1994. Muslims and Christians work together on our rigs with no evidence of tension whatsoever.

The water wells drilled by our equipment support an estimated 10,000 head of cattle and the needs of two villages and the new hospital. The roads built to support the oilfield business provide easier travel for the people, and the dugouts have trapped lots of water for them. Also, the Sudanese who work with Roll'n have a noticeable improvement in their quality of life. Because of hygiene education and medical services, it has been over a year since a family of a Sudanese rig worker has lost an infant.

• 0950

Sadly, the civil unrest in Sudan has gone on too long. While we hope the latest peace negotiations will be successful, there is little evidence of this happening soon. Regrettably, all the people of Sudan will suffer as too much of the country is directed at internal fighting.

A successful oil industry is critical in raising the standard of living in the impoverished nation. The consortium's oilfield project is the largest economical project in progress in Sudan. The pipeline will be a catalyst for more oil exploration.

Rebel leader John Garang has repeatedly threatened to sabotage the oilfield development and pipeline construction. Regardless of the justice of his cause for such action, this will be counter-productive and will only harm the Sudanese people.

The United States has chosen to impose economic sanctions on Sudan. We also find this very counter-productive. Sanctions have not swayed the governments of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and will not be successful in Sudan.

China has become an important ally of Sudan and its presence in Sudan is readily apparent. As western countries continue to retreat from Sudan, their influence will continue to diminish.

Canadian Foreign Affairs has recommended we do not send Canadians into Sudan. We wonder if Canada is following the right course of action. We wonder about the quality of information used to make these decisions.

We are not aware of Canada's providing economic aid to Sudan other than sporadic emergency relief efforts. We do know that export financing or other incentives aimed at third world nations are not available for Sudan. We wonder if Sudan is being treated by Canada relative to other countries in similar situations.

We have been warned by the Department of Foreign Affairs to leave the country every time SPLA issues a warning. Every year at the start of the dry season in November, we are warned about new threats. We take these threats very seriously, as do our employees. We have always given our employees the option to leave the country at our expense and we have a major emergency evacuation plan.

Our concern is not with the warnings. Our concern is with the quality of information used to make the warnings and the timeliness of the warnings. It seems very little is done to determine the actual situation. Further, we are usually aware of developments before receiving any official notice.

Fortunately, there have not been any injuries to Roll'n employees to date. Our employees are advised of the situation going into Sudan before they go. We are substantially distanced from the fighting and we have had only several comparatively minor skirmishes nearby.

It is hard to know who or what is behind these skirmishes. The military provides protection for the entire oil project. While that creates its own problems, it is an important safeguard.

We also do not believe the SPLA or any other organization wishes to harm foreign workers. Our employees are kept abreast of the developments. They rely on information either from other people working in the area or from their Sudanese co-workers. The consortium has its own security representatives and periodically has employed independent Canadian consultants who have developed relationships with both sides.

It is difficult for anyone to determine the actual situation in south Sudan, as both sides are guilty of spreading propaganda. However, one can learn much from the people who are actually in the area.

Canada cannot solve problems in Sudan. However, Canada can play a role. We in the oil industry are not the bad guys. In our experience, the people throughout Sudan are more concerned with survival than with political causes.

Here is what we would like Canada to do.

First, we would like Canada to rethink its foreign policy toward Sudan. We would ask you to sift through all the propaganda and to consider the effect of current policies in Sudan and Canada's standing abroad, why you recommend we not operate in Sudan. We would ask that you consider all available information.

• 0955

Secondly, we would like Canada to become proactive in seeking actual, timely, first-hand information of ongoing activities. This may involve engaging someone who is in regular, direct contact with both sides. We do not know the current source of Foreign Affairs information, but we believe it can be improved.

In summary, we are a comparatively small international company. Canadians like us need the help of our government if we are going to continue to expand and create new opportunities for Canadians. We need your help to maintain the safety of Canadians.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee and to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, sir.

Members have been distributed two maps of Sudan. Could you tell us where your activities are located?

Which map have you got? The one entitled “Sudan Administrative Districts” or just “Sudan”?

Mr. Ron Robotham: Can you see the Bentiu area? Just north of there is Kadugli. We are in between those two areas. We are just about right in the centre.

The Chairman: Are you in Western Kordofan or Southern Kordofan or Southern Darfur or—

Mr. Ron Robotham: We are in the southeastern part. Just about straight south.

A voice: It is just south of Southern Kordofan.

The Chairman: If we find Kadugli in Southern Kordofan, it is in that region there.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Is that for all the oil operations?

The Chairman: Are all the oil operations in that area or are the oil operations generally spread across the region?

Mr. Ron Robotham: No. The Canadian ones are all down there. The Chinese are getting to be very prevalent in there.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Where?

Mr. Ron Robotham: They are up north. There are concessions all over.

The Chairman: But the Canadians tend to be concentrated around Kadugli, I take it.

Mr. Ron Robotham: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Is the entire region of Kordofan potentially subject to oil development?

Mr. Ron Robotham: Is there lots of potential there?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes. How large a potential oilfield is there, and where? There haven't been geological assays?

Mr. Ron Robotham: I don't know. We haven't found the boundaries of it yet. We are still exploring and we are 100 miles square now. It is pretty big.

Mr. Bob Mills: Some information I was able to get says that it could be very large.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: How widely spread is it?

Mr. Bob Mills: Again, I don't think they have the boundaries, but it could be—

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Huge.

Mr. Bob Mills: —but I'm just providing information.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you very much, Bob. It is very vital information.

The Chairman: We will certainly get to that. We have one more speaker and then we will have questions.

Mr. Middleton, I believe we will hear you next. Do you have a summary of your statement?

Mr. Mel Middleton (Individual Presentation): I have done a summary, yes.

The Chairman: It would be preferable if you could stick to the summary rather than the long statement. I have some experience with these statements and I know it does not take 10 minutes to read a seven-page statement.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I will summarize my summary.

The Chairman: Thank you, I appreciate that.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I would like to thank the committee for its interest and the time it has invested in this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to testify on what I believe to be matters of utmost importance for Canada as well as the Sudanese people.

Having worked in Sudan for over 10 years, both in the north as well as the south, part of that time as an adviser to the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi, I have witnessed a fair amount first-hand. I have assisted several organizations in starting up their programs in Sudan and was involved in the establishment of a network of relief agencies, which in 1995, for the first time in over 10 years, brought humanitarian supplies to the Nuba Mountains, an area of Sudan that has been denied any access for over a decade by the Sudanese government.

I was born in Ethiopia and have lived in the Horn of Africa region for over 26 years. Over these years I have talked to scores of Sudanese citizens who have been victimized by the Government of Sudan, the war and sometimes their own faction leaders.

The crisis in Sudan deserves far more attention than it is currently receiving from the world community. This is especially so for Canada today, for there is an important Canadian component to the civil war itself and the continuation of suffering.

The root cause of the Sudanese conflict, as has been pointed out, is the historical oppression of the north over the south, which predates the colonial days. The current war is merely the continuation of a war that began over 40 years ago at the time of independence, with only a 10-year break following the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972, which gave significant autonomy and freedoms to the south.

• 1000

But in 1983 the government in Khartoum reneged on this agreement and the war broke out again in force. The present government made matters worse by its brutal suppression of all opposition and denials of fundamental human rights and freedoms. At this time most southerners have vowed never to trust the north again.

The current NIF government is one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world today. It has unofficially encouraged the re-emergence of a nasty slave trade, carried out massacres of civilians using weapons of mass destruction, and has used relief assistance in a program of forcible religious indoctrination. The Sudanese forces have used rape and starvation as a weapon of war and are carrying out a policy of genocide by attrition against ethnic groups like the Nuba, which are now in danger of being destroyed forever.

Rebel forces have also committed atrocities. In recent years, however, there has been both a qualitative and quantitative difference between the conduct of the main rebel force and that of the Government of Sudan. On the side of the SPLA and its allies, there is a commitment to democracy and good governance, even if the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The government, however, is committed to a political and religious agenda that is incompatible with fundamental human dignity. Even many northerners are waging fierce struggles against the totalitarian rule in Khartoum.

International aid organizations such as the UNICEF-led Operation Lifeline Sudan have been manipulated and used by the government for the past nine years for their own political ends. They, like the ICRC, are forced to adhere to antiquated notions of state sovereignty and have little alternative but to obey the edicts from Khartoum, which has used the restriction of humanitarian access as one of its military tools.

The almost total dependence by the donor community on these two channels of assistance to reach the needy in the south has created an environment in southern Sudan that has made the populations both extremely vulnerable and highly dependent upon the international community for their survival. Nevertheless, despite all of OLS's shortcomings, it has managed over the years, until recently, to stabilize the health and nutrition levels of most of the population groups to which they have been given access.

Khartoum has also implemented an effective program of divide and rule, pitting different ethnic groups and faction leaders in the south against one another. This has led to some of the worst suffering in the civil war. Recent destruction caused by one of the warlords who had been armed by the government has caused widespread displacement and hastened the onset of famine conditions in northern Bahr-el-Ghazal.

There was adequate warning from aid agencies as early as the beginning of last year and even earlier that the present famine conditions that we are seeing would unfold if action was not taken on the part of the international community. The warnings fell on deaf ears, and last year OLS received less than 40% of its most urgent emergency needs.

For several years CIDA's food aid to Sudan has been virtually non-existent, until very recently. With respect to CIDA's non-food humanitarian aid, IHA, its response to this recent nascent crisis in 1996-97 was to completely suspend the already dwindling assistance it had been providing to OLS southern operations. The desperate cries of UNICEF officials and the increasing vulnerability of the people, clearly seen through rising malnutrition and morbidity rates, were insufficient to move CIDA's emergency aid department to take preventive action. Instead, IHA officials demanded that UNICEF repay money that it had been given in previous years, all of this due to administrative squabbling over reporting issues, most of which had occurred three to four years previously. CIDA ignored the fact that cutting off funding in long-term emergency situations has the same effect as denying humanitarian access to areas of critical need.

Other agencies working in government-held areas, as well as some that were not even in the country, did receive funding that year. One agency, the ICRC, received a grant even though it had completely withdrawn from Sudan. We have serious concerns that some of this money might have gone to its partner agency, the Sudanese Red Crescent, which works only in the government-controlled areas and, as you have heard from Marciano, has been accused by southern Sudanese of using relief assistance for purposes of religious indoctrination. Despite attempts to gain clarification of what happened to those funds over the past few weeks, no assurances have been forthcoming from IHA officials.

• 1005

While Canada has supported peace efforts through IGAD, this forum deals with only one track, that of conflict between the government and the SPLA. Initiatives that address other types of conflict, such as inter-ethnic and inter-factional fighting, have gone unassisted. Canada Fund development assistance has been almost exclusively given to the north, with only token amounts given to projects in the south.

But the greatest indictment on Canada is the negative effects of the oil production that has been carried on in part by Canadian firms. The development of this oil is a major factor in the continuation of the civil war. While the oil reserves are for the most part in the south, they are controlled by the government. Revenues generated from these oil reserves, either directly or indirectly in the form of credit, increase the north's ability to suppress the south. It will also provide a large funding base in the future for the government to export its terrorism and militant religious agenda.

Canada's presence in such a controversial issue clothes Khartoum with false respectability, providing it with a de facto imprimatur for its extremist agenda and brutal oppression of the south. Sudanese civilians whom I have spoken to, who have escaped from areas in close proximity to these oilfields, tell horror stories of ethnic cleansing being carried out by mercenaries and militia groups and of the efforts to ensure the protection of the Canadian oil workers. Canada's impotence at curbing the abuses associated with this oil company is seen by Khartoum as a wink and nod from Canada to carry on with the status quo of tyranny.

Certainly in southern Sudan, Canada is widely viewed as one of the few western nations that still has cordial relations with the despotic Sudanese junta. Canada's tendentious approach to the Sudan crisis is a baffling affront to the suffering people in Sudan, and a misrepresentation of the Canadian people who believe in justice, equality and fundamental human rights and freedoms.

If Canada is to have any credibility in maintaining its international role as a peace-loving, compassionate country, the time has come for our government to consider some recommendations. I support Mr. Kenny's recommendations regarding the need to support conflict resolution and civil institutions and development in the south, and the need to recognize fundamentally the just cause of the southern people.

An independent commission needs to be set up to investigate the role that Canada is continuing to play in contributing to and facilitating the ongoing crisis in Sudan, as well as the nature and extent of the human rights abuses being committed against the Sudanese people. This should include investigation into the issues of slavery, genocide, the use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, as well as the abuses associated with Canadian commercial activities. Policies need to be put in place to ensure that Canada's humanitarian aid offices place higher priority on preventing the occurrence of famine rather than waiting until media pressures force a cosmetic response to the dying.

Canada should use its offices and good international reputation to apply the appropriate pressure on all parties, especially the Sudanese government, to allow continued unrestricted access to all areas of need, especially the Nuba Mountains and other areas where slavery, rape, starvation and genocide are occurring. Legislation needs to be enacted to effectively limit the capacity of Canadian businesses to provoke human rights abuses being carried out on their behalf. Or, if this is not possible, ensure that adequate compensation is provided to the displaced victims of these Canadian activities.

Finally, given the similarities between the Khartoum regime and that of other pariah states, such as Iraq and the former apartheid government of South Africa, Canada's diplomatic relations with the Sudanese government should reflect a consistency of approach. There should be a strong, unambiguous message of Canadian condemnation with the activities of the NIF government, while at the same time making a clear distinction between the government and the Sudanese people, most of whom are victims of this tyrannical government. As long as the NIF is in power and until such time as there is a serious, verifiable change of position in the direction that government is taking, there will never be lasting, just peace in Sudan.

• 1010

Mr. Bob Mills: I certainly would like to welcome all the witnesses. As I think most of the committee knows, I have spent a fair amount of time on this issue and certainly have talked to you on the issue at greater length than you have had an opportunity to do here.

I think for the committee it's valuable to hear the variety of points of view on the issue, and certainly I appreciate, Mel, the sorts of issues you bring. On the other side, I think it's important that the committee sees at least one example of an oil company and its concerns and its involvement in not only the industry but in the people, and certainly some innovative ideas of where we might get industry involved as part of the human rights issue and helping the people, as has been pointed out, with water and things like that.

As well, it's important that we get the message that this is broader than the country itself or the civil war and the potential of the expansion of this issue, as pretty well all of you have indicated. I think that's extremely important.

Getting right to my questions, I would like you to address the implications of U.S. involvement, of Chinese involvement, and where that might be going in terms of an international issue. It seems to me that is what will draw more attention to this issue. I wonder if you could specifically address that and maybe elaborate a little on that.

I also would like you to be thinking about the unity of the SPLA. I think most people have agreed that the NIF is not necessarily legitimate in its concerns about the people of the country.

Is the SPLA in a position to form a government if that were to happen? I'd like you to bring in the international scene as to what it thinks about that question as well. I think everybody probably has some input on that.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I will address the last one because that's easier—the unity of the SPLA and its suitability to form a government.

I think it's important to recognize that the SPLA is the main faction fighting the government, but it is allied with the other opposition groups in the north and there are several of them all under the National Democratic Alliance umbrella. The NDA has a lot of work to do, but I think it is certainly a better alternative at this point than the NIF. I think Canada could play a major role in strengthening the institutions within the NIF.

I think it is important to draw the distinction that the NIF is not synonymous with the SPLA and that there are still a lot of problems within that alliance that need to be worked out. But as I say, it could form a credible government if given the chance.

On the role between the U.S. and China, the presence of the U.S. in opposing the NIF regime I think has its downside as well as its upside. Sudan has tried to posture itself as being the new Saddam Hussein, if you want, or the country that is standing up to the imperialist superpower. And having the U.S. take a strong stand against it gives it a sort of legitimacy among the extremist elements in the Islamic world.

That is why I think countries like Canada, which do not have the same baggage as the U.S., can play a major role in highlighting the human rights abuses of the NIF regime and the unsuitability for it and the regional instability it is creating in the region.

The Chairman: Thank you. Did anyone wish to add to that?

• 1015

Mr. Gary Kenny: In response to the question of whether the SPLA is in a situation to form a government, I think the short answer right now is no. I mentioned in my remarks the need for capacity building of the SPLA to make it an organization more capable of doing governmental things. I think my hope for the country would be more in line with the current position being articulated by the Sudan Alliance Forces, which I am not sure the Canadian government is very cognizant of.

This is a relatively new organization formed primarily of northern Muslims. They have articulated a very interesting future for the country. They have also started to develop ideas around how the country would be structured politically and economically, on which I think the SPLA still has a lot of work to do. They are articulating some kind of a coalition government or government of national unity that would incorporate all the major players in Sudan, possibly even the NIF, and I think this is something that deserves much more analysis and research and interpretation on the part of the Canadian government.

Mr. Bob Mills: I believe we have an invitation from the Government of Sudan, from the NIF, to visit Sudan as a parliamentary committee—or one of us. I think these guys might agree to send just me. If we were to take a parliamentary committee there, I have assurances that we could go to the Nuba Mountains, that we could in fact go into some of the rebel-held areas.

I have asked you this question privately, but I think it's good to get it on the record. I want your opinions on the effects and on the advisability of that. I know what Foreign Affairs thinks of that idea, but I will not ask it.

The Chairman: We have a one-way ticket for you, Bob.

Mr. Bob Mills: That's what I'm afraid of. But basically the vice-president says yes, you can come here, and yes, you can go wherever you want. Of course, we have to get that in writing.

The Chairman: Sudanese representatives came here at the time of the signing of the landmines treaty and presented to various members of the committee a new structure of the country that suggested at least that there was a great deal of local autonomy that was to be given to the various regions shown on the map. They suggested we come and see for ourselves.

I think this is a legitimate question. I'd like to add a second question to that of Mr. Mills: are these assurances of the government that we were given on an individual basis, that there is a whole new political structure envisaged for Sudan that would allow complete autonomy for regions in terms of religious and cultural independence, true? And would a trip by one or more of us to Sudan enable us to find out the truth about this situation?

Mr. Gary Kenny: I appreciate the temptation of such an invitation. I'm not aware, however, of any invitation extended whereby those who went were truly allowed unrestricted access to any parts of the country. Not even the UN special rapporteur on Sudan has ever been allowed unrestricted access to parts of the country that he wanted to go to, especially non-government-held areas, and in some cases not even government-held areas. So I would be extremely wary of that.

I think if any parliamentary delegation does go, and I would support that, you should go to the north. You should experience that, whether or not you have unrestricted access. You are given that, but you should also go to the south. You should also go to rebel-held areas and make sure you get that perspective as well. That's absolutely fundamental.

Prince Marciano Luwanla-Eli: As a Sudanese, I believe that something must be done for my country. I believe from the bottom of my heart that Canada is one of the best countries in the world today because of its glowing heart toward peace and unity all over the world.

• 1020

My friend here said Canada cannot do anything in Sudan. I believe southern Sudanese people all over the world believe that if Canada really involves itself in peace in Sudan, we can achieve peace. We have tried many countries. Most countries offer us their own political thinking only for their own interest. We have seen how Canada plays the game all over the world today.

I sincerely believe, as do all southern Sudanese, that Canada should ask the Government of Sudan to talk peace with the rebels. This is not Sudan's problem alone. It is even in Uganda today. I sincerely ask you, as members of this committee, to ask your government to participate in bringing peace between Uganda and Sudan, because as long as there is a problem in Uganda, we will continue to fight each other also in Sudan.

Regarding the Chinese problem or involvement in Sudan today, countries like Canada allow the Chinese to take control of everything. If it is really a matter of interest, I believe Canada also has an interest in Sudan.

Today Sudan is taking Chinese because Chinese volunteered themselves to defend Sudan for their own interest. Canada can also volunteer not to bring weapons to Sudan, not to bring weapons to SPLA. There are a lot of things Canada can do in Sudan that the world will appreciate and that we Sudanese will appreciate.

The Chairman: Prince, do you think that if a group of parliamentarians were to go from Canada to Sudan, they would have an ability to meet people both in the north and the south freely and to travel within a reasonable timeframe? We have very short periods of time when we can be away from our duties here in the House of Commons. We can't go for a month or something. Would it be possible in a short trip for members of this committee to actually meet enough people in Sudan to get a true appreciation of the situation?

Prince Marciano Luwanla-Eli: I have difficulty hearing. I lost my hearing. Even I am a victim of the government. I was tortured. I lost hearing— unless you write it down.

The Chairman: I'm very sorry. I didn't know that. This is a very bad room for hearing. We have difficulty as well.

Actually, you may find my question more interesting in French than in English. Do you believe that if a group of parliamentarians were to go to Sudan, we would be able to travel freely and meet the people necessary for us to form an independent view of the situation, within a reasonable timeframe? As you know, members of Parliament can go only for short periods of time because we have responsibilities here.

Prince Marciano Luwanla-Eli: Because of Canadian sincerity toward the world, I believe that the Sudan government respects Canada. I never see anything from the Sudan government against Canada. So because of this, I believe the Sudan government will allow Canadian representatives to go, but not really freely. But still they will bring something.

Mr. Ron Robotham: My view on that is that you would be totally allowed to go wherever. Our security people are allowed to travel wherever. We meet with rebel forces. The security people we employ meet with all the forces, all the rebels, everybody at any time.

The biggest problem you would have is coordinating a trip, and you would need permission from the rebels more so than the government, I think, to coordinate that. But we have had our security people everywhere, and they have all been accepted freely.

You have to understand, everybody there wants this thing to end. Everybody there is trying to work to an economic gain, so they are all willing to listen to whomever and demonstrate whatever. I think the Canadian government would be very well received.

• 1025

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): In your description of the situation in Sudan, Ms. Scrimshaw, you said that the conflict was political, ethnic, religious, inter-regional and territorial in nature, obviously because of the presence of natural resources, particularly oil.

However, we know that this war has been going on for 50 years. Peace negotiations have almost always failed. The people have suffered through incredible famines. In light of this situation which, in my view, is intolerable for these countries, I would like to know whether the Organization for African Unity has played a role in this conflict.

Second, do you think this is a type of apprehended genocide? If so, would it not be up to the UN to intervene on humanitarian grounds? I would like to know what you think and what the department thinks about this?

Of course, the issue of humanitarian intervention is always very sensitive. Everyone thinks of Somalia and all the negative things that happened there. Aside from that, there was the dramatic situation in Rwanda and Burundi, but the UN sat back and we saw what happened. I think we have to ask ourselves the question regarding Sudan. Does the UN have a humanitarian duty to intervene in Sudan, given that the conflict has been going on for 50 years and that it seems impossible to settle it in any other way?

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: Thank you, Ms. Debien. You have raised some very important matters. As to whether the OAU played a role, the answer is yes, through the IGAD—and I don't know what the acronym is in French, I apologize. The OAU offered to mediate the conflict between the government in Khartoum and the SPLM.

Despite the goodwill of the IGAD and the donors who were part of this group of friends involved in the process, there has not been much progress made in the peace negotiations. That is the problem, because there can be no peace unless the protagonists, the two main parties, agree to find a lasting solution. In my view, there are interests on both sides, and that is complicating the entire process.

Ms. Maud Debien: And what about my question on genocide?

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: I don't think we can talk about genocide at this stage. I know that our friends have used this term. There have certainly been some brutal acts and some very, very serious human rights violations committed, particularly by the government in Khartoum, and to some extent by the other parties.

Does the UN have a role to play? Of course it does. Once a genocide has been declared, the international community must intervene. The important thing is for the international community to try to support the peace process and to speak with one voice, so that there are not a number of processes going on which ultimately weaken the whole effort. I would emphasize what some witnesses have said: the international community has a responsibility to come to the assistance of the victims of this war. The humanitarian issues are very real, and we all have a responsibility to help out.

Ms. Maud Debien: I was speaking about a duty to intervene on humanitarian grounds, but that was based on a military intervention. There's never any problem regarding humanitarian intervention. All countries provide aid. I think that has happened in Sudan and that Canada participated to some extent. When I talk about the UN's duty to intervene, I am speaking about a military intervention, but one which ultimately has a humanitarian connotation.

• 1030

You say there is no genocide. I think we are witnessing an apprehended genocide, which is as serious as an actual genocide.

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: We are working in co-operation with the other countries in the region. To my knowledge, they do not advocate—and I would ask my colleagues to correct me if I'm mistaken—military intervention at this point. Rather, they favour dialogue to try to find an internal solution to the problem. Of course, if the situation were to worsen significantly, we would have to look at other options.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Middleton.

Mr. Mel Middleton: That would be another reason to send a parliamentary delegation to the region, to find out the facts on this genocide. Remember that in 1994 when the Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis in Rwanda, it was a long time before the international community even used the word “genocide”, despite the fact that everybody knew it was happening.

Everybody knows it is happening, with the exception of a few, in Sudan as well, in the Nuba Mountains.

I would suggest that the parliamentary delegation go there, make the opposition-held areas of the Nuba Mountains their specific reason to go there, and call the government's bluff. Accept its invitation and go to see for your yourselves. Go to the oilfields, but also go to the opposition areas, where the displaced people from the regions in proximity to the oilfields have fled. Go to the Ingessna Hill area of the southern Blue Nile province, go to Southern Darfur and Northern Bahr-el-Ghazal where the active slave trade is going on.

I think the issue of genocide is a very critical issue. I am personally convinced, and there are a host of other human rights organizations that are convinced, that this is in fact a hidden agenda of the NIF government.

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: Mr. Chairman, I had not commented on the possibility of a visit by the committee to Sudan, and even though you anticipated what our reaction would be, I would like to say that I support fully what the panellists have said. But I think it is important that if a parliamentary delegation were to go, you visit all parts of the country to form your own judgment of what is really happening on the ground.

That being said, clearly we would have a concern about your safety and we would want to talk about that before any plans were advanced too far.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have a couple of questions. The first concerns the briefing note by Mr. Middleton. At page 7, item 6, in the second paragraph you say that Arakis Energy Corporation is a major factor in civil war in the country. Am I right?

Mr. Mel Middleton: That's correct, yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can you give us some examples of what they do to bring about civil war in the region? What are we doing to stop this company from doing what you claim it is doing? That is my first question.

My second question is, I notice on the map that Egypt is to the north and Libya is northwest of Sudan. Can you or another witness elaborate on the relationships of Sudan with Libya and Egypt, both as a country as a whole and south Sudan in particular? Do Egypt and Libya have an interest in Sudan?

I know a few years ago there was an attempt to unite Sudan with Egypt. How much of a role does Egypt play in the Government of Sudan, in Khartoum, or in the south? My question also extends to Libya.

Mr. Mel Middleton: The answer to the last question would take a long time.

Egypt and Sudan were at one time a country ruled by the Anglo-Egyptian condominium rule during colonial days. Egypt has always maintained a sort of paternal influence over Sudan. I think its main relationship is governed by its fear of the Nile waters being cut off. That is its primary interest, so it cannot be seen to be an unbiased observer. It will not do anything that might jeopardize the flow of the Nile water.

• 1035

The relationship with Libya is very hard to pin down because its been on again, off again. Khadafy is sort of a hard person to analyse. He has provided funding assistance to the government, to different rebel factions, to the Ugandan government.

It is really hard to say at this point. Libya has very close ties with the old kingdom of the Fur in western Sudan, Darfur, and there are still very strong ties between the remnants of some of those kingdoms and Libya.

To answer your first question, the oil reserves in southern Sudan are very vast. In 1978 I talked to a Chevron worker who confidentially disclosed that they believed they were larger than Saudi Arabia. I have no way of verifying that, but I do know they are very vast. They extend not only to the Bentiu-Kadugli area, but also as far down as Opari in southern Sudan. I am sure there are a lot more than we are aware of.

That being the case, the fact that only one side, at present, is going to benefit from the oil exploration and the oil production is a major source of the conflict. The southern Sudanese do not want to see what they believe are their resources going to support a government that is bent on their annihilation or their subjugation. That is the main reason it is fuelling the civil war.

The other issue is also important, although it is not as important, and that is the ethnic cleansing that has been carried out in the areas in close proximity to the oilfields. The government militias and mercenaries have cleared away any people they suspect of being aligned with the main SPLA group, the head of which is John Garang, and primarily it is the Dinka population that inhabits mostly the southwest and western areas around the Kadugli oilfields.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: My question has to do with the Arakis Energy Corporation. You say it is a major factor in fuelling the civil war. What is the Arakis Corporation of Calgary doing to promote civil war in the region?

Mr. Mel Middleton: Specifically by helping the government produce the oil, which is not going—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The company right next to you, Roll'n, is doing the same thing. Why don't you blame them for the same “crimes”?

Mr. Mel Middleton: They are connected with Arakis. When I use the term “Arakis”, I mean it is the main player.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It is also actively engaged in promoting civil war in Sudan.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I don't know specifically what his group is doing, other than what he said this morning.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But what kind of information do you have on the Arakis oil company? That is what I am trying to find out. You haven't given me a single example yet of what the oil company is doing to promote civil war that this company is not doing.

The Chairman: I don't like to interrupt, Mr. Assadourian, but as I understand what the witness is telling us, it is that, in his view, the oil production funds that flow largely to the government in Khartoum are precisely enabling that government to retain its domination over the south, and in that sense it is fuelling the civil war because it enables one side to have a financial advantage, because it has the source of revenue flows from the oilfields, which the southern population that lives there does not.

Is that a correct summation? That is my understanding of the evidence.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that the other companies are doing the same thing. Why don't you single out other companies? You singled out this company alone. That is what I want to find out.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I am not aware of how the different companies interact with each other. My understanding is that Arakis has employed this company as a consulting firm. When I say “Arakis”, I'm saying it is the main oil company that subcontracts out to other groups.

The Chairman: But I take it, Mr. Middleton, that you would make the same statement whether it was a Chinese, American or any oil company that is producing revenues for the government.

Mr. Mel Middleton: Exactly. But the difference with the Canadian oil company is that it is using Canada's good image. So we, as a Canadian people, are brought into the fray.

• 1040

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You have two oil companies here. One is Arakis and the other is Roll'n. Maybe there are more. I don't know these companies personally, but why do you pick on Arakis and not the others? Do you have any information specific?

Mr. Mel Middleton: Any Canadian oil company that is involved in the same activity.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That's fair enough. Okay.

Mr. Gary Kenny: Arakis has been historically the most high-profile Canadian oil company working in Sudan. That is why it tends to be targeted specifically. But I think Mel's response is quite right. Any Canadian oil firm, whether it's one like Roll'n Oilfield providing equipment or whether it's International Petroleum Company or the others you weren't sure about—in our view and the church's, they are complicit.

They are not fuelling the war as such, but they are complicit through their partnership with the Sudanese government in prolonging the war through the provision, in this case, of oil reserves or oil processed products, and also the sense of legitimacy they lend to the regime through their partnership with it.

I last visited Sudan in October-November of last year for seven weeks. I went to southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains and northeastern Sudan. I asked questions to everybody I met about what their impression of Canada is generally in terms of its involvement with the conflict in Sudan. Almost invariably the answer I got was focused on Arakis. First of all, Canada has an international reputation as a proponent and a supporter of human rights law in terms of its international good will and all that kind of nice motherhood stuff. But they couldn't get their minds around why Canada would allow a company like Arakis, as well as other companies, to continue to work in Sudan in a way that they felt very strongly was complicit in the prolongation of the war.

I think Canada's image has suffered quite a blow from that. I'm talking about a broad range of sectors—the churches, the rebel movements, the political and military wings of those movements, and ordinary people on the ground. Almost invariably I got that response. Canada's image has been besmirched as a result of these corporate connections.

Mr. Ron Robotham: I disagree with that statement. I think Canadians are well known around the world for their technology in the oilfields and various other industries we go into, and that is one of the reasons we are in there. As I said earlier, as we continue to diminish our support for Sudan, we are going to see other factions come in there in a big way. Currently the Chinese are in there in a horrendous way, and I don't believe they do any of the humanitarian things we do as Canadians.

As I said, with the oil companies that we have in there, we are putting in hospitals, we are helping to build villages. The Canadian side of it is spending big dollars in there to improve situations in the Heglig area and down in that depressed area. Some of that is even against some of the government's beliefs. But we are doing it for the people of Sudan in general, not any one faction or anything.

As I said earlier, the oil companies are not the bad guys here. We are the good guys trying to improve the economics of Sudan and we need more industry in Sudan. Just like every other country, it's going to survive on economics and peace will come with a good economic background.

We see Muslims and we see Christians drinking water out of the same well we drilled, when the day before they would be fighting each other. We see them coming to the same hospital. We see them working together when the stuff is there for them to work with.

Famine is a terrible thing. You need to witness this. It causes people to do terrible things, and I can understand that. But when there is some good provided and there is some benefit provided, they will all share it; they all want it. They all have a common goal there. Setting up a stage where we have good and bad guys is not the answer for this. The answer is to educate everybody to the good, not to pick sides here.

As a contractor there, I am not going to pick sides. I can't, because I don't know who is going to be in power or why they are going to be in power. I do recognize that both sides, all the Sudanese people, do want some economic benefit and they do see industry, whether it's oil, manufacturing, agriculture or whatever, as a benefit to all sides. And I think they are all pointing in that direction.

I think as Canadians we want to enhance that, not deter it, because the longer we deter economic benefit to Sudan, the longer inhumanitarian things are going to happen. The longer people go hungry, the worse it is going to be for Sudan. That just makes common sense.

• 1045

The most logical thing we can do is try to enhance their economic well-being at all levels and educate all sides on the benefits to the Sudanese people. As a contractor in there, that's what we are trying to do. We can do it in a small way. We employ 125 Sudanese. Those people are happy. They have good health, good hygiene. Their families are getting healthier and that's going to spread out. That's going to continue to grow.

I disagree that little factions here and there don't help, but I think if we did enough, one inch at a time, we would eventually get there. We can't come in and solve all the problems at once, but what we can do is try to bring some economic benefit to Sudan through businesses, through free enterprise and through whatever, and educate the governments on how to control that economic windfall.

There will be close to $1.5 billion spent by foreign countries or foreign businesses in Sudan probably before one drop of oil gets sold. I suggest that we are at least five years away from producing any oil or marketing any oil. Some analysts say ten years because of the civil strife and everything else, and that may well be, but I think we will see it in five years, because I think all the factions are going to work together to try to share in whatever economics.

Right now the only credibility the Sudan government may have is the fact that it is attempting to develop an oilfield and there may be some credibility for that. But it is not receiving any money or any cash per se because there's nothing being spent.

The Chairman: Just so the committee understands, because this is the nature of the debate regarding what Mr. Middleton told Mr. Assadourian and you, you are saying you are not exploiting oil, so there are no revenues flowing to the government, and you don't see any for another five years. Is that correct?

Mr. Ron Robotham: That's correct, sir.

The Chairman: Let me bring the committee up to date as to what is happening procedurally. The bell is ringing. That is an indication that we have had a motion that the House proceed to orders of the day moved by the opposition. There will therefore be a vote at 11.10 a.m. We will go until 11 a.m. Then we will take a break and go to the vote, and we will get Mr. Boudria to come here after the vote.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I welcome this discussion this morning and the very frank expressions we have had from the witnesses before us.

We realize that you have put on the table several things that you feel Canada should do, ought to do. At the same time, there are several things that circulate among MPs, one being a magazine talking about a new constitution.

Since we have explored some of the other possibilities, I would like to ask about this new constitution, if there is anyone here who can speak to this draft constitution. What role is this playing in terms of conflict resolution? Is Canada involved in any way in this draft? Where are the opposition parties and others in terms of this draft constitution?

Prince Marciano Luwala-Eli: Regarding the new constitution of Sudan, there is not any change in that constitution. The Islamic government is just trying to play games to convince the southern Sudanese who are now in the government that it has come out with a new constitution that can bring all Sudanese together.

First of all, as long as Islamic law is the official law of Sudan, there is no guarantee for southerners to believe that the constitution is for everybody. We southerners will never accept to be governed by the Islamic constitution because we believe that the law of the country is the international law that can govern everybody equally. So there is no change in the constitution.

• 1050

The Chairman: When the officials from Sudan were here, I made the statement to them that you just made. They said under the new constitution the regions will be able to adopt their own religious codes and that Islamic law would not apply in the south. We are having a lot of trouble trying to understand whether that is just window dressing we were being told or whether it's the truth. You are the first witnesses the committee has ever had who actually come from the area and can help us as to whether we are dealing with propaganda or truth.

You are telling us strongly that in fact the government does not intend to give religious freedom to the people in the south. Is that fair?

Prince Marciano Luwala-Eli: According to Muslim belief, not only in Sudan but all over the Islamic world, they believe that Islam is first before everything, and Muslim is first.

We Sudanese and we Christians know very well that they are trying to cover the truth from us. They are trying to tell you they have come out with good ideas of unity, but nothing— The Koran says very clearly that you have your own religion and I have my own religion, but for Sudanese people they don't even go according to the Koran.

The official who spoke to you is just trying to convince you in order to gain support from Canadians.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine, I'm sorry, I interrupted your probe.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, I was trying not to bring to the fore that very public conversation we had at that luncheon, but it's important that this collaborates with this article I was reading. But I would like to hear the other witnesses.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I agree with my colleague. That is an attempt to deceive the west. I think what you need to really pay attention to is what the government is telling its own northern people, the National Islamic Front, because it will never, I guarantee, stand up in front of its people and say that Islam will not be the rule of the land. It can say that out of the country, to international diplomats, but never to its own people.

As a reminder of what happened in 1983, there was a written agreement, which had been brokered by Haile Selassie in Addis Ababa, that gave regional autonomy to the south, gave religious freedom and so on. The view of the National Islamic Front at that time was this agreement in not written in the Koran and therefore it's not binding. So take it with a grain of salt.

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: We have a copy of the draft constitution, which I would be pleased to copy and make available for members of the committee. We were looking just now for the reference, but it is our understanding that the constitution which that adopted in draft form by the Sudanese assembly and that will now go to referendum does not contain a provision that separates the state and religion and hence has been criticized by the opposition. It also does not provide for the formation of political parties, even though the NIF had indicated that there would be multiparty elections down the road. So we do have concerns with this as well.

I believe when Mr. Kilgour met recently with the Sudan chargé d'affaires he raised these concerns explicitly with him.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Chairman, naturally, we are all very concerned about the poverty and the general situation in Sudan. The people who are paying the price are the women and children. We have heard various views around the table today. My questions will focus mainly on international aid. Consequently, Mr. McMaster will probably be able to answer them.

• 1055

Minister Marleau, who appeared before the committee recently, said she had an action plan or that she would be producing one to enable us to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. Are you aware of that?

[English]

Mr. Don McMaster (Director General, Eastern Africa and the Horn Program, Canadian International Development Agency): I know that the minister, like the whole government, is hopeful of returning to the 0.7% target, which has been, of course, Canada's target since it was first established back in the late 1960s. Our ability to meet that target, of course, will depend on the allocations that are made to the Canadian International Development Agency by the Minister of Finance.

As you are probably aware, we have slipped quite dramatically in terms of our percentage of GNP in the last five years, as every government department has gone through a process of budget cutting in response to the needs of addressing the deficit. It is our hope that in the years following this current fiscal year CIDA's budget, along with the budgets of other departments, will grow and that we will be able to, shall we say, regain the progress we were making in the 1980s toward that target of 0.7%.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: We are well aware that there have been cuts everywhere. We are supposed to be providing assistance for Sudan. I think we must continue to help this country. I would like a description of our programs there. Have there been any cuts so far to CIDA's assistance to East Africa? What would we have to spend to provide concrete, fast assistance to Sudan? Do we have any programs at the moment that could be used to provide this assistance which is so essential to the development of this country?

[English]

Mr. Don McMaster: Mr. Chairman and Madame Guay, since 1992 Canada has had no bilateral program of co-operation with Sudan. The program was suspended after the visit of the parliamentary delegation, which was referred to because we felt, first of all, that the human rights abuses in Sudan by the government were such that we could not continue to support it with a bilateral program, and we also felt it was impossible in a situation of conflict to mount a bilateral development program that normally demands that people work on a long-term basis on the ground.

Since that time we have responded solely through the vehicle of emergency assistance and emergency food aid. As was indicated by Madam Scrimshaw in her presentation, we have contributed over $100 million in emergency assistance since 1990.

In the current year, 1998, already we have contributed almost $6 million of assistance to Sudan. I think it is important to remember that our contributions through emergency assistance are on a responsive basis. That is, we respond to appeals that are made to the Government of Canada by international organizations and the NGO community. In most cases within Sudan it is through Operation Lifeline Sudan that those activities are coordinated. But we do not initiate humanitarian assistance on our own, because that is not the mandate that has been given to the humanitarian assistance program of CIDA. It is a responsive program.

We have one program that is regional in nature. It was referred to, I think, by Mr. Kenny. It is a capacity development program administered by a Canadian NGO, OXFAM, which has the capacity to work in Sudan as well as other countries in the region. That is a program that again is managed by OXFAM and responds to requests that are made to it by NGOs in the region. That is a program, funded bilaterally, of a regional nature, that could work in Sudan.

Also, reference was made to the support we are giving to IGAD. That program also is supporting capacity development throughout the region and most specifically is supporting conflict resolution activities through IGAD in trying to resolve the conflict in Sudan—and one should mention also the conflict in Somalia.

• 1100

The Chairman: Thank you.

I will just point out, since we are going to run out of time very quickly, that Mr. Middleton, who I see has his hand up, pointed out in his brief that there are concerns about misuse of CIDA funds and that there is some concern about whether they are getting to the people they should get to.

Mr. McMaster, if you can't respond to that now, very quickly, what I would suggest is that CIDA might provide a written response to the committee on that issue and then we could provide it to Mr. Middleton. Mr. Kenny, I know, is very interested in whether the funds are actually getting through to the people they should be helping. That is a concern, and I think it is Madame Guay's concern as well, whether or not we are actually getting the funds through to the proper people.

I have a question. Were other members of the committee at a breakfast meeting that was organized here at Parliament about two years ago by a group of women from Sudan? They were from both the north and the south. Ms. Augustine has said she was there. They suggested that there was a potential for women's groups to work toward peace in Sudan. Do any of the witnesses know whether there has been any progress and whether we could be of any specific help to groups of that nature?

They were very impressive. My recollection is that they were a very impressive group of women. They were NGOs. They were operating on their own. If there was some help or support they could get, I think that would help to move the peace process along, but I don't know much about it.

Mr. Gary Kenny: The visit of those two women was actually organized by my organization. Again, when I was in Sudan recently I visited women's projects in southern Sudan, and they were doing absolutely fabulous work, especially in the area of conflict resolution and peace building. I can't say enough about it. The problem is that they lack resources, chronically, to do the follow-up work that is necessary to firmly entrench these kinds of programs in the community.

I would encourage this committee to support the potential for funding, in whatever facility within CIDA or Foreign Affairs, to be able to support these initiatives in the future.

Again, I emphasize that they are doing absolutely fabulous work. There is much more potential for the expansion of it, but they lack the resources to do it effectively.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I agree with Gary on that. They are doing great work, but they need to be taken seriously by the movements and by the government, and that is where countries like Canada can play a role.

I would like to clarify one thing. As for this $100 million that CIDA has given to Sudan, the vast majority of that was between 1990 and 1993. If you take the figures between 1994 and 1997 you will get a far different picture.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue discussing the issue that has been raised.

Initially, I thought that the civil war in Sudan is perhaps so terrible that my question might seem very superficial. I wondered how I should ask it. I was wondering what type of things have been done to promote the development of civil society in Sudan, projects for women or other groups, by church groups or others. What sort of initiatives are in place in the country to support them, particularly regarding the development of democracy? What role has Canada played or could it play in projects of this type?

[English]

Mr. Mel Middleton: We could take the rest of the week to answer that question. There is a lot of—

The Chairman: We have a vote in three minutes.

Mr. Mel Middleton: I would like to reiterate Gary's suggestion of holding a round-table discussion on that, because there are a lot of things that could be done if there was a commitment on the part of countries like Canada.

The Chairman: Ms. Scrimshaw, do you want to add the last word?

Ms. Sandelle Scrimshaw: I just wanted to say that we are, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, planning to hold a round table on Sudan. I think this would be an opportunity to seek the views of the various interested parties in Canada with respect to Sudan.

One of the issues that came up when we met with NGOs was the impact of the civil war on women and the role that women can play in terms of peace building and conflict management. That is one of the issues that CIDA and Foreign Affairs want to look at very closely.

The Chairman: I take it that when you hold your round table you will keep the committee advised as to when that is going to take place.

I would like to thank, on behalf of the members of the committee, the people who joined us this morning. You can tell that we have a great deal to learn.

Prince Luwanla-Eli, you bear the title of custodian of your people. We have a great deal to learn and we are anxious to learn. If there is some way we can help, we are anxious to help.

[Translation]

I am speaking on behalf of all committee members in this respect.

• 1105

[English]

We are adjourned until immediately after the vote, when we will have Minister Boudria here to discuss our initiative in Algeria. Please come back immediately, because we will have lost some time and we want to get moving right away.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned until after the vote.