SRID Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 17, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This afternoon, we're very privileged to have with us His Grace Dr. Joseph B. Marona, from Sudan. He is the Archbishop of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan, and Bishop of Juba. With him is the Right Reverend Peter Coffin, Archbishop of Ottawa for the Anglican Church of Canada.

We're very pleased to have you with us, and I think we should...

We have a couple of documents here that His Grace brought with him, but they are only in English. Do we have permission to give these out?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): As an exception, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): You're very privileged. The Bloc has made an exception for you.

Your Grace, would you like to begin with your presentation now?

His Excellency Archbishop Joseph B. Marona (Episcopal Church of the Sudan; Bishop of Juba): I would like to thank all of you this afternoon, and I especially thank my brother, the Bishop of Ottawa, the Right Reverend Peter Coffin. It is because of his kindness and his concern that I should come to attend the Synod of Ottawa this year. My wife and I are here, although she is not present with us here today. So, first of all, thanks again for inviting me to speak to you.

I know most people know about the problems in Sudan, about the conflicts that have been going on for a long time. The fighting has lasted for 45 years. There have been many things with the fighting in Sudan and the death of people there, including the suffering of people, the hunger situation, and so on.

I am here just to give you the present concerns of the Anglican bishops and the Catholic bishops who felt deeply that we cannot continue to suffer like this. It is better to make our voice known to our brothers and sisters who can come to our support.

On August 17, 2001, we, the bishops of the Catholic and the Episcopal Churches of the Sudan, gathered in Nairobi for a seminar. The title of this seminar was “Pastoral Leadership and United Action in a Crisis Situation”. We met from August 12-17, 2001. We were moved by our Christian faith and concerned by the immense suffering of all the peoples of Sudan because of the current civil war. We appealed for an immediate end to the hostilities and for the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Sudan.

We addressed our appeal to the Government of Sudan, the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army, or SPLM/A; the National Democratic Alliance, or NDA; other warring parties; all peoples of the Sudan of every tribe and religion; the Intergovernmental Authority for Development that is known as IGAD; and other peacemakers, including the IGAD Partners Forum, the United Nations, the African Union, and international partners.

• 1540

We also addressed our appeal to His Holiness Pope John Paul II and the Most Reverend and The Right Honourable Dr. George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to religious leaders around the world.

We began with the state of suffering.

As bishops of the Catholic and Anglican faiths, we are deeply concerned with the appalling human suffering in both the north and the south of our country. Nearly 3 million people have died because of the war you are hearing about in Sudan. Over 6 million have been internally displaced, and millions more have fled the country. The economic situation has deteriorated to the extent that over 95% of the population is living below the poverty line. In some areas, populations are being deliberately denied critically needed basic humanitarian assistance.

The war has adversely affected particularly the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly. In order to sustain the war efforts, the warring parties conscript children of school age into military service by force, thus exposing them to grave harm, depriving them of any chance of education, and jeopardizing their futures. Women and children are harassed and abused, and the elderly are robbed of normal, traditional care. Ordinary and traditional family life has collapsed and cultural traditions have broken down.

Large sections of the population have become dependent on humanitarian assistance for their survival. However, although this desperately needed, it is not an effective long-term solution to the crisis.

Brothers and sisters, given this and other heinous experiences of human suffering, we appeal for an immediate end to the war. A negotiated settlement, rather than military means, is the only way in which the church leaders should appeal to achieve a just and lasting peace.

We discussed peace based on justice. Stopping the war is essential, but it is not sufficient for the establishment of a just and lasting peace. The root causes of the conflict must also be addressed, so that all Sudanese can enjoy their rights in dignity. This could be achieved by addressing the following: first, affirmation of diversity in a national identity that ensures equal treatment of all cultural, racial, and religious groups in the public media and in the educational and legal systems, in order to promote peaceful coexistence; second, power-sharing by a participatory system of governance that ensures the full rights and participation of all people, with such a system protecting the states' exclusive rights over their territories and providing for the sharing of agreed upon powers at the national level—and this balance of powers must be configured to avoid the domination by any one group over another, while ensuring the full rights of all; and third, wealth sharing through an agreed upon formula between the states and the national government to ensure balanced and equitable development.

• 1545

We also touched upon a program for peace. Addressing the above three major concerns will require a concrete program of action that includes a number of concepts.

The first concept is an affirmation of principles. We affirm the declaration of principles of the IGAD peace process, particularly in regard to the relationship between state and religion, the principle of self-determination, and a comprehensive ceasefire.

In terms of the relationship between state and religion, the unity of the country and peace with justice cannot be achieved under sharia law in a country with a diversity of culture and religion. Instead, we call for religious freedom for all religious groups and for the separation of religion and state. In the event of disagreement with the above position, we call for self-determination for all marginalized people. Upon the achievement of a negotiated settlement, a comprehensive ceasefire should be declared and internationally monitored.

We also touched upon advocacy for justice and peace. We call for respect for human rights for all citizens. We call for building reconciliation and forgiveness among the diverse cultural groups of the nation, including north-south, south-south, and north-north initiatives. We call for the cooperation of neighbouring countries, international organizations, IGAD Partners Forum countries, and all people of goodwill, and the constructive engagement of all national stakeholders, including civil society groups and religious communities in particular.

We called for the affirmation of the ongoing people-to-people reconciliation and peace process in the south, and urged all parties to the conflict to engage in and to support seriously this process and any similar processes in the north. These grassroots efforts should be linked to the higher national political level.

We are seeking commitment to fostering a genuine Christian-Muslim dialogue, particularly at the local community level.

We called for affirmation and support of the Sudan Ecumenical Forum and its ongoing initiatives for peace.

Finally, we are seeking suspension of oil extraction until peace is achieved. Its continuation fuels the war, uproots the civilian populations, and reinforces the existing imbalance in wealth sharing.

In conclusion, as believers in the one Creator, and sharing in a single humanity, we believe and hope God will grant the people of Sudan peace if we are willing to pray sincerely, to to reconcile, and to bear one another's burdens.

• 1550

Brothers and sisters, this is the end of the presentation. I'm glad to have this opportunity to present it to you. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you. Reverend Coffin, do you have anything you want to add?

His Excellency Bishop Peter R. Coffin (Anglican Diocese of Ottawa, Anglican Church of Canada): No, I'll just hang in here in solidarity with my brother.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay, then we're going to begin the questioning now, starting with Dr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Archbishop Marona and Bishop Coffin, thank you very much for appearing in front of us here today on this exceedingly important topic, one that has been tragically and largely ignored by the international community for far too long, at a humanitarian expense that we here at this table cannot comprehend.

We actually visited Sudan earlier this year with the chairman. On just one issue, the issue of oil, because it is so important, we asked how you would do it if you were to try to stop the oil exports. With the involvement of Canada's Talisman Energy...

There's a big debate about removing Talisman. If we remove Talisman from the picture, what we learned down there is that another group, particularly the Chinese, would buy up that part. There would be no change in terms of the oil exports, but there would be a small but profound change in the small health care and education investment Talisman makes in the south.

One of my questions to you—and I'll just list them—is whether or not Talisman should leave. If Talisman left, what do you think would happen? How would we choke off the oil supply, as you suggested, given the fact that Malaysia, China, and Sudan are the other partners in this consortium, and given that the Swedes, the French, and others are actively looking at exploring other areas?

As my other question, in trying to deal with the issue, what we've called for is an immediate ceasefire, stopping the bombing, and inter-tribal dialogue and such. How do we actually get both sides to the table to discuss this in good faith? The frustration that we have here, Archbishop Marona, is that both sides, and particularly the government in Khartoum, have been intransigent, frustrating, and simply not acting in good faith, much to the frustration of many people on this committee who have tried very hard to further the objectives you so eloquently mentioned in your speech.

So my last question is whether you think the IGAD process is dead because of the possibility of independence for the south. If the possibility of independence for the south is removed and changed to autonomy within the context of the Sudan that exists today, would that actually enable the IGAD process to move forward, as the Egyptians would never support an autonomous south, given that the south would gain control over the White Nile?

Thank you.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I know the IGAD process is what the southerners and the Sudanese believe in. That means it is the only process that can continue. If it is strengthened, that's on the side of IGAD.

The only thing is that they have not included us, as church leaders, in the IGAD. This is one of the areas we are fighting for, so that we sit in on the IGAD discussion in order to give them our views as Christian leaders. This is what is lacking.

Bishop Peter Coffin: We're not getting the volume sometimes.

Mr. Keith Martin: Would you like me to repeat the questions? Would that be helpful?

Bishop Peter Coffin: Could you take them one at a time?

Mr. Keith Martin: I'll just reiterate them.

• 1555

Briefly, as my first question, I asked about Talisman. If Talisman was removed from the picture, how would that change the ability to decrease the economic benefits Khartoum receives from this that are helping them to drive the war machine? Another country, like China, would buy up their concessions.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I know there is a problem in it, and the outcry against putting off the extraction of the oil is there because the Canadian company is included there.

Canada is well known for human rights. Canada has been supporting us in the peace process. When the Sudanese, especially those on the other side, see Canada's hand in the oil, it means to them that Canada is also killing the people in the south. This is why we are concerned about the oil.

Mr. Keith Martin: The problem, the balance that we find difficult, is that if Talisman leaves, so too will the small investment in health care and education that they make, leaving the people in the south with nothing. What would happen is that China would buy up their concessions, with no net decrease in revenues to the government in Khartoum, but an absence of health and education to the people in the south who have absolutely nothing. That was what the NGOs gave to us when we were there.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but when he speaks using terms like “we found this”, I think he should clarify that he's not speaking on behalf of this subcommittee.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I believe he did clarify that at the very beginning.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Who's he speaking on behalf of?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Right now, he's speaking. He said he had been there and he said I had been there.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So he's speaking on behalf of the two of you?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I guess he is.

Bishop Peter Coffin: You were there representing who? I'm sorry, but that's not clear to me.

Mr. Keith Martin: We went down there to take a look. We were representing nobody at all.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Okay, I didn't understand.

Mr. Keith Martin: And by “we”, I'm referring to the group that went down there.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Now it's clear, because I know who John Harker and those folks were sent by. When somebody goes from here, it's just nice to know who's going with what.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And who's funding them, as well.

Bishop Peter Coffin: And who's funding them, yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): The Canadian Arab Federation.

Bishop Peter Coffin: The Canadian Arab Federation? That's useful for us to know.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think that was stated at the very beginning, when we got back.

Bishop Peter Coffin: That's good.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I know when people constantly move away, God knows how to intervene, because the outcry of people is painful in the ears of God. On spiritual feeling, I think I can say so.

Mr. Keith Martin: It was just that the removal of Talisman would take away that health and education—

Archbishop Joseph Marona: It is the most influential company that we see, and there are others who will be weakened if Talisman moves away.

Bishop Peter Coffin: But that's not the only NGO that provides health and education in southern Sudan. The churches, including the Anglican Church, have actually been doing that since long before Talisman. The Anglican Church has been providing social infrastructure in Sudan for a hundred years. It marked a hundred years in 1999. You might have a company proclaiming that it put up a school, a clinic, or whatever, but it's not like they're the first and only people who have played a part in the area.

The other thing you might be getting at is whether or not China or PETRONAS, the Malaysian company, will move in if Talisman pulls out. That's a very real possibility. The reality is that if there's a Canadian company, then we as Canadians have more responsibilities in the way in which we deal with our work overseas. If we can bring diplomatic pressure or influence to bear on other countries, that's good. As a middle power, we have sometimes done that. But the fact that somebody else might take over and keep on pumping that oil doesn't abnegate our responsibility to function morally in our relationships overseas.

• 1600

So if we pulled out, would somebody else put in? Probably very much so. Are the social infrastructures in Talisman great enough to justify its existence? I haven't seen all those. All I would just say to you is that a number of other players in the NGO community have been playing there for much longer and have provided a social infrastructure that, I would guess, has fewer strings attached.

Mr. Keith Martin: Do I have any more time?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, I'm sorry.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you very much Your Grace.

You will have to listen to my voice through an interpreter. I will speak slowly because I want you to understand me well.

I can tell you that a great number of Quebeckers and Canadians, men and women, are happy that you should be here today.

There were several interventions in the House of Commons. I have asked several questions on that issue, first to the Minister at the time, Mr. Axworthy, and then to the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Manley. I asked him in the Committee on Foreign Affairs if he would accept to modify an act that exists in Canada in order to stop Talisman from continuing to extract oil while remaining a Canadian company. He asked me in his answer if I wanted that company to leave Canada. You can read that in the blues. My answer was that if he was not willing to do that it meant that we were powerless.

If I am happy to be here today it is because I think that your testimony can have a strong influence on the Foreign Minister. I am a member of the opposition. I am doing what I can but the government can do something. Thank you for being here.

Here is my question. What can we do as well as keep putting pressure on Talisman so the company stops stimulating war? At least it is what I understand. What more can we do? What do you expect from us?

[English]

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Do you want to answer that on behalf of His Grace?

Bishop Peter Coffin: I can do that.

What he's really saying is that he'd just like it made clear that when a company functioning in a place like Sudan is coming from a particular country, people in the country from whence that company comes should know the implications of their investment. Part of this is always telling the story that there are some costs to Sudan as a result of us being there, and that the costs outweigh the benefits.

• 1605

He didn't take it any further than that, other than to say he's in Canada and it's a Canadian company that is there. He's not addressing anybody else's company at the moment. This is a Canadian company, and he feels this particular company is just adding to the costs. We need to know that this is so. Is there any way either we, as Canadians, or the Government of Canada can set expectations for how we do our business overseas, inasmuch as we benefit from that in some way?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm wondering if His Grace has ever approached Talisman to ask them these same questions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Who's asking questions?

Bishop Peter Coffin: He tried in Calgary, but the gentleman he wanted to speak to was away. It just didn't get any further than that, but I understand the church leaders tried to approach oil companies.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, while I was here in Canada, the church leaders met with one of the members of Talisman in Nairobi. The outcome has not reached me yet. I have not heard how they discussed it, or the result and the conclusion. At the time, I was already here in Canada.

Bishop Peter Coffin: The Canadian churches, through our ecumenical coalitions, have made various interventions. You have a report—which I have just seen—from ICCAF, the Inter-Church Coalition on Africa. We've done this before.

You might wonder why the churches are engaged in this. Well, one of the reasons is that, for instance, there are twice as many Anglicans in Sudan as here, so we have considerable sources of intelligence. You might debate how useful they are.

The churches a long time ago were engaged in the fight against apartheid, and we were somewhat vilified when we said we really needed to boycott stuff—and that cue came from the churches in South Africa. But later, after we were somewhat vilified and regarded as naive, it later became government policy to do that. That brought apartheid to an end.

We at the churches are just simply trying to bring to our folks back home a concern that our partners have expressed to us. We're just saying that, even if there wasn't a Canadian implication, we really can't ignore that kind of suffering. But there is a Canadian implication to this.

We've been on this kind of route before, and I just...

Anyway I won't pursue that part. I see some nods.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Continue, Madame Lalonde. I think we have time.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The American Congress threatened to forbid Talisman from issuing shares on the American stock markets. That was before September 11 events. After September 11, if my understanding is right, the American government wanted to rebuild bridges with Sudan. Don't we now found ourselves in a situation that is even more complicated than the one that prevailed before September 11?

• 1610

[English]

Bishop Peter Coffin: We have begun to think this thing through, and there's certainly a feeling here in Canada amongst some of the churches that the American House of Representatives is threatening to take some kind of forum to de-list on the New York Stock Exchange. It would be considerably more powerful than our government if it could—which it probably can't—threaten to de-list on the Toronto Stock Exchange. It's one of the few times I might have some agreement with the American House of Representatives.

I haven't discussed this with my colleagues, but it has been my fear that in the attempt to make alliances because of this present war on terrorism, alliances and compromises will be made with the Sudanese government. We'll put certain things aside until such time as this war is over, and other considerations will be put on hold for a while, at the expense of something that continues in the south. We haven't thought this thing through, but there are some very serious implications in that, inasmuch as the Americans actually were probably going to get from Talisman the kind of result we've been trying to get unsuccessfully.

We did hear from the CEO of Talisman that there was consideration, certainly in July and August, that this possible de-listing was serious enough for them to consider pulling out. We don't know how far that went, but it obviously had more influence than our interventions in Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Svend Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you very much. I, too, want to join in welcoming you, Archbishop Marona and Bishop Coffin. On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I thank you for your courage in speaking out at this very tragic time.

My colleague Francine Lalonde has pointed out that a number of things have changed since September 11. The American Congress had passed the Sudan Peace Act by a vote of 422 to 2, but Bush has just said the U.S. is not proceeding with it. Also, at the United Nations Security Council, the minimal sanctions that had been in place have been lifted as well, as I'm sure you are aware. So I'm very concerned that, in the aftermath of September 11, the world seems to be turning a blind eye to what is happening.

I wanted to just make a couple of brief comments, and then I have just a couple of questions.

We have just received the report of the investigation into oil development that was done by the inter-church council. It's a very powerful and damning indictment of the role of Talisman and other oil companies. Amongst other things, the council says:

The investigation finds that oil development in Upper Nile has exacerbated civil conflict and assisted the war aims of the Government of Sudan, facilitating violations of human rights by government forces and government-backed forces.

The former Canadian foreign affairs minister indicated that if this could be proved, then he believed Talisman should not be involved in fueling this bloody conflict. We do now have more evidence that this is in fact the case, in that Talisman's airfields are being used even more by the Sudanese military, contributing to death and to the murder of innocent people.

You've heard from my colleague Keith Martin, who was speaking on behalf of the chair as well, about their visit. They have suggested Talisman is helping out in some social capacity, so the company should be allowed to stay.

I might just say I believe the chair indicated their trip was funded or supported by the Canadian Arab Federation. That's not accurate. The Canadian Arab Federation played no role whatsoever in that trip. I believe it was the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, whose operations, by the way, are partially funded by Talisman Energy. I believe the transportation of this delegation within Sudan—

Mr. Keith Martin: On a point of order, Madam Chair—

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may finish—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, you can't. Mr. Martin has a point of order.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Robinson—through you, Madam Chair—you're imputing and suggesting somehow that this was paid for by Talisman. It has been proven before—and you know this full well, as it was brought up in the House—that this is not the case. You were castigated in the House for bringing this up, and I'd suggest that you withdraw your remarks immediately.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, that may be a point of debate, but it's certainly not a point of order. The fact of the matter is that the sponsoring organization does receive funding from Talisman, and I believe the transportation within Sudan was in fact provided by Talisman Energy. I think that's factual—and it had nothing to do with the Canadian Arab Federation.

• 1615

Archbishop Marona, I want to ask you if you could give some indication to this committee as to the role you would want the Government of Canada to play—because we can make recommendations to our government—at this very critical time to try to facilitate the peaceful solution that you're talking about, and to call upon Talisman to withdraw its operations and end its complicity in Sudan.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, our main aim is for Canada to stand with us in solidarity, to listen to our cries, and to sit in a sensible area so that they can come in to support us. We are speaking, but no one comes to help us. This is why I have come to appeal: so that the Canadian government and you, the Canadians, can help us.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I assume you would agree, as well, that you would hope the Canadian government would show leadership with respect to the role of Talisman.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: If Christians know the danger of this oil that is shedding the blood of people and they talk to their government about it, why can't their government listen to them?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly.

I wonder if you might want to comment any further on the situation after September 11, and on the impact the events of September 11 may have had in terms of the global community's response to your very eloquent plea for justice and peace for the people of Sudan.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: The Sudanese have been deeply concerned, with sorrowful hearts, about what happened in America on September 11. Of course this has pained us, although it has changed the direction of what the Americans and Canadians could do. But we cannot keep quiet. If we keep quiet, our people will be finished. We want Americans and Canadians to know that this is more painful when added to what happened in America on September 11.

Mr. Svend Robinson: My last question is with respect to the persecution and oppression of the followers of your religion. I wonder if you could just share with the committee some of the impacts of the repression and the violence from the Government of Sudan on followers of your faith and on other Christians in Sudan.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: That is a very excellent question.

The most recent event was on April 11, 2001. I think the whole world has known, and we have circulated the news so that our brothers and sisters know and can pray about it. The police stormed the cathedral, many people were injured, and 105 people were arrested. People were scattered. One of our courageous boys who caught a grenade threw back the grenade and it exploded, and his right arm was cut off. If Sudan was able to make people into saints, we would make him a saint, because he died when he defended his faith.

Mr. Svend Robinson: These were forces of the Government of Sudan?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: They were police forces. I'm sorry, but I was in Uganda at that time, because I have three offices, in Khartoum, in Juba, and in Kampala, Uganda. I went to consecrate the bishop who will take over for me, and it happened during my absence. But I was able to share it with the world in the Anglican community. We send letters everywhere, so that people know what is happening against the Christians in Sudan.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would it be valuable for this subcommittee to travel to Sudan to see for itself the impact of the current situation?

• 1620

Archbishop Joseph Marona: If the ways are open, please go see it so you can believe what I am saying.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

Bishop Peter Coffin: We were really hesitant to raise that question about religious things, because this is very sensitive these days. I might say some folks from the Sudan have come to visit me at my office. There have been both Christians and Muslims in that—mostly Christians, because that's obviously a relationship that I have, but there have been Muslim folks expressing concerns as well. So it's not...

Archbishop Joseph Marona: What the bishop is saying is true, because I visited the Governor of Khartoum. He was very sad about what happened on April 11. He told me, “Archbishop, if I'm still the Governor of Khartoum, I will never live to see what has happened on April 11.” That was somebody from the government.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to join with my colleagues, Archbishop, in welcoming you here, and I say to you that this has been an issue that has been not only in our minds, it also has been in the activities and the conversations that we've had. It has also been in the prayers we all have had recourse to in terms of looking for a solution and trying to find a solution around this.

We have approached this issue from many varied perspectives. The questions I want to ask today, in keeping with the other questions asked to you, are more for clarification and in terms of our resolve in how we can move forward. In terms of the paper and the presentation you gave to us, which is very clear, very lucid, and says step by step what could be done, while calling on all the players and stakeholders, what has happened with this paper? Where has it gone? What responses have you had since August 2001?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: We just introduced this recently, in August, and the idea is spreading. The outcome of this is not clear yet. I am sorry if I don't understand your question well, but my brother can help.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Who was the paper addressed to?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I have already made it clear today that it's addressed—

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes, it says it is to the Government of Sudan.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So it was sent to them in August?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, it has gone already.

Ms. Jean Augustine: What about the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: It has gone to that movement.

Ms. Jean Augustine: It has gone also to the IGAD Partners Forum?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, we formed committees, divided them, and asked them to take this to IGAD, to take this to the President of Sudan, to take this—

Ms. Jean Augustine: And there has been no response in the last couple of months?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: No, not yet, but because I am here in Canada, I don't know what is happening there.

Ms. Jean Augustine: All right.

You were heading the coalition of Catholic and other bishops, so the response will be coming to you directly.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: To us, yes. You'll remember that the Catholic Archbishop and the Anglican Archbishop have signed the letter on behalf of the bishops.

Ms. Jean Augustine: In light of the forced displacement, the human rights violations, and all of the things that create insecurity and, as a result, lead to food insecurity and the devastation of people—people who are very vulnerable, as you said earlier—Talisman refuses to accept any responsibility in that regard. I think we're trying to find ways, evidence, and whatever we can do as a Canadian government, to ensure there is full recognition, corporate responsibility, and corporate action on the part of Talisman.

The Talisman issue is one I think we are all grappling with at this particular point in time, but I want to also ask about the role of religion in this conflict. I know this is not the time when we want to talk about religion, but I know also that the various Catholic and other groups are in there working, and I just want to know how that is influencing the conflict.

• 1625

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Let me say one thing about the peace program. The people-to-people peace initiative was initiated by the churches, under my chairmanship, when I was the chairman of the New Sudan Council of Churches. The churches play a big role in reconciling people when there is a misunderstanding. They plead on behalf of the people to talk about peace, and they plead to the government. I think the churches—not only Anglicans and Catholics, but all denominations in Sudan—have now formally united to work together and to stand together to achieve peace.

We are also playing a big role in talking to the movements and to bring them together, so that they understand themselves. We also go to the government at Khartoum to tell them it is better to respect human rights. We are not quiet in Sudan about all these things.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Maybe I did ask the question, Madam Chair, but I'm trying to find whether we can see an independent, impartial, expert monitoring group or body in that entire conflict. Is the church that independent and impartial, or do the churches have a specific...

Archbishop Joseph Marona: The church actually is not supporting any group at all.

Ms. Jean Augustine: The church does not support any group?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: No, the church is not supporting any group. The church is always in the middle—

Ms. Jean Augustine: With the people.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: —to protect the people, and also to talk to the government against what they are doing.

Once you support one side, you cannot talk about the ills of that side. This is what the church has realized. If you don't support any side, you are able to say, “No, brother, this is wrong,” or, “That is right,” and so on. I think that's one of the things the church is doing, so we don't support anybody, we are just in the middle.

Ms. Jean Augustine: How does your group view the role of the Canadian government in that IGAD process, then? Canada is involved in the process of trying to move things forward. It is one of the partners or one of the players in that process. How is that regarded? I think this is the opportunity for us to re-examine, to look at, to see what our role is in that process if it's not moving as the hope is that it should.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: We are all concerned about the discussion in IGAD. There is no sign of any good thing coming out of IGAD, but we still encourage it because it is carrying a declaration of principles. It has taken this as the major point of discussion. This is why all churches rally behind the IGAD process.

Ms. Jean Augustine: So there is support for the IGAD process.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you find the process too slow? Can you do an evaluation of the process for us?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, that is a good idea.

The process is too slow and there is no concrete result from what they are discussing. In all the times when they discuss these things, you will find the meetings disperse without reaching a conclusion. We want to encourage it so that they make a concrete decision and peace is realized. This is our outcry.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Again, my thanks to both of you for being here today.

• 1630

I appreciate the fact that we had some previous conversation in Saskatoon, Archbishop Marona. If I understood you correctly at that time as well, then as others have said, you have said the troubling thing about Talisman is that it's a Canadian company and the Khartoum government has, in the past, used the good name of Canada as a moral cover, if you will.

We have had a good reputation around the world, so by saying Talisman, a Canadian company, is in there, the government in Khartoum is saying it can be business as usual, and companies can go in, invest, and so on. I think the words used were “moral cloak” or “moral cover” for the activities of the oil production and other companies going in, because a good Canadian company is in there. That is hurtful to me as a Canadian, in that our good name is sullied, our reputation is dragged through the mud, if you will, by that indirect complicity in genocide, as some different reports have called it.

Let me tell you what I was wondering about here. In the preface of this report from the Episcopal Church of the Sudan, you make some pretty direct statements in regard to the role of oil. It has been very clear—I think my colleague Mr. Robinson read that off—that oil development by all the companies there has to stop, period.

Let me get to the Canadian connection again, and the Talisman situation there. You've pointed out that “Talisman's legal business partner, the NIF regime”—that's the National Islamic Front—“is one of the world's worst violators of human rights.” You go on with a pretty strong statements about “acts of of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity”, and so on. If any company here, as a business, was involved in or partnered with somebody doing such nefarious things, it wouldn't wash for a day. We wouldn't tolerate that. But somehow, when it's overseas and is farther removed from the spotlight of media and so on, it is tolerated, and that's very offensive to me.

The other thing I find in your report here is that you make the point that Talisman is working on oil reserves when the ownership of those oil reserves is in fact disputed. It's not even a sure thing that they have a legal right to be there. That's the point you're making.

Another point that I find interesting, and on which I'd like you to comment or expand, is some of the reports of things the Sudanese regime has done in terms of the forced removal of populations for oil production, and in terms of their scorched earth policy and so on, to secure oil fields for foreign companies. You say:

Such action would violate the provisions of Protocol of the Geneva Convention, and constitutes a war crime under international law. The significance of such a violation can hardly be overstated.

That's a pretty serious allegation. You're effectively saying we possibly have a situation going on here whereby, because of Talisman's involvement, they could be brought before a war crimes tribunal because of a violation under international law. Would you stand by that? Are you serious about Talisman's role being good, not being for the benefit of the Sudanese people at this time?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: This is public opinion. It's not mine as a church leader. What the people talk about is what we also want other people to know. This is why it has appeared.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

There is a statement here as well that says:

Several months ago Hassan al-Turabi, the most influential member of the NIF government, declared publicly that oil revenues made possible by Talisman and other foreign companies would be used to build factories for missiles and tanks.

Again, those are the words of Hassan al-Turabi, an influential member of the National Islamic Front government, and they're on page 11 of your report.

Is it a known thing, from public pronouncements or statements by the government, that they are using revenues gained from oil production to carry on the war, to decimate the south, and to win the battle there? Is that just select knowledge for a few people, or is a statement such as the one you have there pretty common knowledge?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: As I said earlier, this is public opinion. We have been saying many things separately, but this is not the right forum to talk about them. Otherwise, we could talk more and people would realize what we have been saying is true. In Africa, though, we say smoke cannot come without fire.

• 1635

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Again, then, why is it so critical for oil production to stop? You're pretty emphatic about that in here, and you have been in some personal conversations as well. It's protracting the war, it's allowing for armaments and so on to be purchased, and it's letting the government carry on. But as my fellow member indicated, if Talisman was out of there, these other countries would carry on with the oil. We would need to have that stopped as well, otherwise we're just going to see the inevitable carrying on of the war, with no end and with the government being more confident, bolstered, and able to see it through right to the bitter end, and with the wiping out of people in the southern Sudan.

Bishop Peter Coffin: I think the message we got from the Episcopal Church of Sudan, from the Harker report, and from some of our own visits there—and there was an inter-faith visit earlier in the summer—is that... I think there's a question about whether we need an impartial bunch to go to the Sudan to find out whether Talisman is good or bad. My understanding is that the Harker commission was certainly part of this, and that there has been no shortage of intelligence about it.

Talisman may indeed have the occasional school or hospital. I'm sure that's true. In fact, I have no doubts that is very true. But I think the feeling is that it does protract the war, inasmuch as it provides... wars can't be fought without being able to buy armaments and to do those kinds of things. Oil provides that kind of revenue.

If Talisman were to pull out, would not somebody else come in and do that? I think that's a very real possibility. I'm sure somebody would buy Talisman's share. Would Talisman pulling out make a difference, then? It may not make a difference because somebody else will in fact harvest that oil, but I think it would make a difference to how we stand in terms of credibility as a country. I've said this before, and I know I'm being repetitive, but just because somebody else is doing it, that doesn't mean we should do it. It really undermines our credibility when we play in the forums in which we have a certain amount of pride because we think we're good at them.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have one last question for both of you, then.

Simply jumping off of what Jean said before, I know our Canadian government seems to hold out some hope for the IGAD process. We all seem to get reports, though—and you've reiterated this again today—that there doesn't seem to be any process. There is no resolution, there is no movement forward, it's just going nowhere.

On page 17, you make the statement that as long as the oil revenue is coming on stream, it's a disincentive for peace and the IGAD process. Is that the biggest obstacle to what stands in the way of the IGAD process moving forward? Are there other things in the way? You make a statement here, so I'm just wondering how you would respond to that or defend that. Are there other things that loom larger, or is oil the biggest issue in terms of disincentives to the IGAD process moving forward?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Probably or probably not. The problem is that the chair of the IGAD is in Nairobi. Recently, I've heard the Kenyan government wants to get shares from Khartoum. The IGAD forum may possibly debate this, because people are serious about it, because we know the oil is is fueling the war in many ports. This is known. If $1 million is spent on the war in a day, where does this much money come from? I think these are some of the things people are thinking about.

• 1640

People say that if peace is achieved, it is not unforeseen that people will come together again to trust oil. People can work together. When there is equal sharing, there is peace, people are all in harmony, and there is no bloodshed. I think nobody will be against this.

Bishop Peter Coffin: I think one of the difficulties with IGAD has been bringing people to the table. There are certain people who just aren't coming to the table. One of the roles of churches, as I understand it from the archbishop—and this is why the statement from the Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops is so important—is to involve a great number of people, not all of whom have gotten along particularly well not just because of religion, but because of other things. It's a major initiative to bring people to the table. Even in the IGAD process, that has been difficult.

As I understand it, Your Grace, a major difficulty with the Sudan is bringing people to the table. Some therefore hope that a country like ours, like Canada, which has broken a number of relationships, can in some way help to bring people to the table. That sounds wonderful and idealistic, but I'm not prepared to let ideals go easily.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Well, people were brought to the table on August 17. I know Talisman attended. I know the government attended.

I believe there was a ceasefire called prior to those meetings. I don't know—you don't necessarily believe what you read in reports any more than you believe what you see on CNN—but I understand that during these hearings, when the government had declared a comprehensive ceasefire, the rebels did not discontinue fighting. In fact, I read that Colonel Garang had claimed he had conquered three more villages while this ceasefire was on.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: On August 17, I was at that meeting. I was chairman of the meeting. We only appealed that there must be a ceasefire, and then we spread the news. Maybe something happened during my absence.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We received—did we not, Mr. Martin?—documentation stating that the Sudanese government had called for a comprehensive ceasefire. As I say, though, it's very difficult to know.

One truth is that there's your side and there's that side, and somewhere in the middle lies is the truth. This has become somewhat of an emotional issue in Parliament here, pitting some members against others, with name-calling and everyone claiming to have the monopoly on what's right and decent and caring, which is not true. We all care. We wouldn't be here if we didn't care.

So in terms of sorting out what the real issues are and what the real truth is, I don't think we can do that.

What parties were missing at the conference in Africa?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Are you continuing the round, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes, I will.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I just think there's so much that's unclear that it needs to be sorted out.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Can we...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...I don't know. At the last IGAD meeting, apparently it was the government that didn't show up, not the SPLM/A.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): No, I'm not talking about the IGAD meeting, I'm talking about the meeting of August 17.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: August 17 was the day we made an appeal. As I said, I do not know if anything materialized during my absence.

Bishop Peter Coffin: That was the day the churches made the appeal. You're probably talking about a meeting that he may not know about. What is this important meeting of August 17?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): It was the meeting of the council of Catholic bishops in Nairobi.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, this is what I'm talking about. That was our meeting. It is the meeting at which that we came up with the—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Talisman was there.

• 1645

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes, but the result is not yet clear. The decision is not made. We are distributing it, and I'm sharing it with you, too.

Bishop Peter Coffin: That was a meeting of Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes, I understand that, but other parties were invited.

Bishop Peter Coffin: And was Talisman there?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: No, that was afterward, when I was in South Africa.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Okay, I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I heard about that meeting. That was only for the Catholic bishops, not the Anglicans.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Bishop, I will try to speak English so that you understand me directly. It's against my principle in the House because my language is French, but it is more important to be understood by you.

It is clear that there is a lot of tension. As Mrs. Beaumier said, there is even tension here.

Of course, there are two camps. I commend your paper because you try, out of those two camps, to call for a peace that respects both and separates religion and faith. Of course, those are principles and ideals that are not easily attained in the actual situation that I understand is going on.

My question is what we can do, other than fight so that Talisman gets out of Sudan. Point 6 in your presentation says, “Suspension of oil extraction until peace is achieved”. I have not followed all that you have done. It is clear that you, the Sudanese, need a third party. Maybe it is IGAD, or maybe it is somebody else that you should try to get to help you—I thought about Mandela, but I don't know who—someone who can try to go to one party and then to the other party to try to bring everybody together. As I understand it, they are far apart.

Is it possible that, because a Canadian company is there, Canada has played a role in creating this division? I see somebody from the ministry, so I suppose they have looked into that. Is it possible? Who can help? What can we ask the ministry to do?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I would like one of the members of our delegation to answer you. He is Sudanese and has the capability to answer, and the bishop will help also.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'm sorry, but we have too many—

Bishop Peter Coffin: Oh, he can't do it? Sorry, Madam Chair.

What is right about... one of the frustrating things I find about being interested in the Sudan as a Canadian is the considerable division. There's division in the south and all of that. That's very clear. Nobody would debate that.

• 1650

One of the things the New Sudan Council of Churches—of which this archbishop has been the chair—has been trying to do is bring some sanity into that. That's one of the things Archbishop Marona is also doing in Canada amongst the Sudanese community. There's a fair bit of division, and it has been very difficult and very frustrating for all kinds of people—and especially people on the outside who care about it, like us—to see something so divided. How does one actually help in all of that? That's an admission folks would make.

One thing I appreciate about the churches is that they realize a good part of the problem is the division within the country at all kinds of levels. The New Sudan Council of Churches is trying to bring that together, and that's part of the significance of this particular statement.

The oil thing is certainly another issue. My only feeling about it is that, once again, it's a Canadian company, and we have to ask if Canadian companies act morally. That company is also is one of our presences abroad, and some of our values are expressed abroad by the way we function—diplomats, military, business. Is this in keeping with our values? If we think this is okay, is it some sort of dumb acquiescence that we're okay with the way this government functions?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Have you completed it?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would just add that I think what Talisman has done—that which we know of—is not acceptable for any company, and not for a Canadian or a Quebec company. This must be said, and we must try to have companies that have some ethics. That's very important.

Bishop Peter Coffin: The reason why it is so important here is that it's the leverage. There's not very much incentive until that particular issue is addressed. There are all kinds of issues, but oil is the leverage issue. The thing is that we're in that business where some of the leverage is.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: May I ask a last question?

Mr. Harker, the reporter who was sent by Mr. Axworthy, has recommended that oil revenues should go to a development fund administered separately from the state and dedicated solely to development until the achievement of peace. Would this be something that could be put...

Bishop Peter Coffin: It would be a lovely idea, but I don't think there's any imperative for the Government of Sudan to act on that particular recommendation.

[Translation]

It is really a dream.

[English]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: It would be part of a proposal like that. Instead of suspending the extraction, it could be that the benefit goes to a separate fund. This could be something interesting that does not impede the money coming to the country.

I don't know if the archbishop—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

While interesting, I think that would be a little bit of a breach of sovereignty.

Ms. Marlene Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

First of all, I would like to apologize to you both for having had to leave part of your presentation and part of the meeting here. I did in fact miss part of the presentation and some of your responses to the questions that arose.

I do appreciate your presence here, Archbishop, and that of yours, Bishop. As you can see by the questions being asked by members around this table, it is in fact a very complex issue. It is one that is creating a great deal of of preoccupation and distress on the part of Parliamentarians, regardless of which party they belong to.

• 1655

One of the issues I would like you to address is one our churches and leaders from other religious faiths over the years have participated in and actually pushed for, and I'm wondering if it's not a possibility for Sudan. I'm talking about a trade embargo, in the same way we boycotted South Africa.

I can remember participating in my first demonstration in 1969 as a CEGEP student—that gives away my age to a certain extent; I'll be celebrating half a century next month—against the apartheid regime of South Africa. I can remember helping to organize information sessions on the CEGEP campuses and university campuses through the late 1960s and into the 1970s, before the issue of apartheid in South Africa was on the radar screen of the overwhelming majority of the Canadian population.

Through the work of our religious institutions of all different faiths, within South Africa and then outside of South Africa, there was a whole public education that went on for the faithful adherents of the various religious institutions. I think our religious institutions had a great role to play in educating the average population of Canada and of other countries about the evils of apartheid, and in bringing to the politicians the political courage and will to actually institute, through legislation, a boycott and trade embargo of South Africa.

I'm wondering if that is not something that should be considered. I don't say it's the solution, but it's something that may need to be considered in terms of Sudan. The reason I ask this is that I've heard the suggestion that was just made by my colleague on the other side, Madame Lalonde, on confiscating oil revenues, for instance, and putting them into a development fund. Well, as the vice-chair mentioned, that's a violation of the sovereignty of a nation.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I can raise a point of order, madam Chair.

[English]

Marlene, we're trying to find something together. It's not confiscating. It's asking the company—

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The government itself would have to agree to give up its revenues and have them placed in a development fund. Unless the government agreed to that, you would have to confiscate in order for it to work. You are then talking about a violation of sovereignty, but that's a whole other debate.

That's one of the issues, obviously, in terms of what could be a solution or one tool in order to bring the various opposing factions to a table to actually discuss ongoing, lasting, and sustainable peace, and then reconstruction of the country. Do you think that is something that should be discussed, or has it already been discussed and discarded as an effective possibility?

Bishop Peter Coffin: They hadn't considered trade embargoes, but you're perfectly correct, the trade embargoes really began with the councils of the churches and people of faith in South Africa sending that signal here. People of faith here were somewhat vilified for being naive. We were all members of the African National Congress, commies, or whatever. But we led the way on that, and, as you say, you were part of that.

It took years before the Canadian government really hooked onto that and made it whatever policy you had to make it for it to be successful, but it was actually led at a very grassroots, faith-community level. After the fact, it wasn't quite as naive as it might have sounded.

• 1700

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I understand that it did take years. In fact, it actually took decades. But in light of the experience and the education of populations outside of Sudan as a result of that experience, once one learns the lesson, that means it's much easier the second time around. I'm therefore wondering whether or not this is a possibility for the religious institutions in Sudan—and I'm not just talking about Christians, I'm also talking about the other faiths that exist in Sudan, whether they be those of the Islamic faith or those of the more traditional religions within the populations in Sudan.

If there is a dialogue going on, is this is a possible solution that is being discussed? If it is, I'm eternally optimistic about humans. I do believe that if there was an agreement, a general consensus that this could be an effective tool to allow a peace process to begin to take place within the country and between the various warring factions and opposing interests, it would not take as long to get government to come on board.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I think it's very important to listen to you about this. Now our cry is that we want to help, and we have been asking questions all the time about what we can do.

What we want you to do, first of all, is come as a third party and ask Talisman to please pull out. That's one. Two, make a comprehensive ceasefire. And three, let people come to sit down. But you cannot sit down when you hear artillery somewhere going boom, boom, boom. The people will not be happy to listen to that.

When these things have taken shape, then the people come to dialogue, as you have stated. When I want to dialogue with somebody else, I need to see to it that the people I have left behind are not scared and have not run away, or that, when I come back, I will not find that my children have been killed and things have gone wrong. This is why we are pleading that we need a third party to come and say enough is enough, and to take this, take these, and so on. I think people will respect that. I think this is our outcry.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: This will be my last question, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Make it short.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: It will be very short, and the answer can be a yes or no.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): There may not be enough time for any answers.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Do you think it would be beneficial for this committee, for instance, to travel to Sudan to meet with representatives of all of the interested parties—those that are willing to meet—to get the viewpoints first-hand?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: To me, this is a very important committee, because this is a subcommittee for human rights. Let them see what is happening, because they are for human rights. They have to protect human rights. They have to speak out for human rights. We are suffering from this. If this committee goes, you should not say Archbishop Marona has sent you to look after these, though, because it is also dangerous on my side.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): We have a bit of a problem. Mr. Martin, would you take five minutes and give Mr. Fontana five?

Mr. Keith Martin: Certainly.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Or do you want to have the last word? You could give him the first.

Mr. Keith Martin: No, I'll share my time with Mr. Fontana. Because he travelled to the Sudan, I think his views are very important to this committee.

Oil fuels the war, Bishop Coffin. There's no dispute there whatsoever.

Bishop Peter Coffin: That's right.

Mr. Keith Martin: If Talisman is out, there's probably no change in oil revenues, but it gives us a moral victory. But in our heated homes, with plentiful food and water, it's not going to save anybody's life, and we agree that's not entirely an objective we need to pursue either.

The IGAD process is going nowhere quickly. That's not an end point.

I think all of us have heard you, and all of us have the same objective. How can we get to a place where a ceasefire happens and and where the other elements of peace will be implemented into tribal dialogue—revenue sharing, stopping the bombings, and such?

• 1705

As best as you can both provide, we want to know how we can bring the SPLM/A and the Government of Sudan to the table to say they must have a ceasefire. My personal view, Archbishop Marona, is that I agree. I think the international community and the IGAD partners need to start playing hardball. I think they need to start saying to the Government of Khartoum that it must do these things and that if it does not, certain following punitive actions will take place against it. I also hope those who support SPLM/A will also say to them that they should participate and sit at the table.

The second and last point—particularly with your involvement with Uganda, Archbishop Marona—is to ask what can be done to say to General Museveni in Uganda to stop supporting the SPLA. What can be said to the government in Khartoum to stop supporting the Lord's Resistance Army and the heinous, bloody conflict in northern Uganda that has been taking place away from the eyes of the world, creating unbelievable suffering on the people who live there? How would you would stop both of those groups supporting the LRA and the SPLA, and how can we actually bring those to the table?

That's for both of you, please and thank you.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Thank you very much.

You have touched one of the wounds that is a stabbing one, because the two countries are sending their men. The Sudanese government says to the Kony group to go in and disturb Uganda. President Museveni then says that since these people are being sent by the Sudanese government to disturb Uganda, he will give arms so that groups can go in and disturb the Sudanese government. These are some of the things that really need to be addressed. If they are addressed... as church leaders say, some of the people can listen to us, but they don't obey. We want the international body to tell these people to stop these things. This is our—

Mr. Keith Martin: Do you think the IGAD partners are the ones to do that, Archbishop Marona? Are they the ones who must start saying these people must do this?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: I think the IGAD Partners Forum, the countries that support IGAD, can do it. Why don't they do it? It's only to discuss the peace. How can peace come if they don't take drastic action?

Mr. Keith Martin: Exactly. I think the current IGAD process is going nowhere, and that's why they have to take a harder view. Would you agree with that?

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Yes.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much. I'll give my time to—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)): Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you for yielding some of your time, Keith.

Archbishop Marona and Bishop Coffin, thank you very much for coming and for letting us know of the current affairs in Sudan.

I want to tell my colleagues that the decision has been made for this committee to travel to Sudan, and it was made in June, before we left for the summer. I only urge this committee to do so.

Having been there myself and having witnessed the atrocities, the inhumanity to humans is incredible. The human dimension of what's going on in Sudan is the most incredible thing I've ever seen, and my life is forever changed for having been there and for having talked, witnessed, and discussed with the civil society leaders, the NGOs, the church leaders, and all well-meaning people who want to bring all the peoples together. I want to thank you for that hard work you do each and every day to save lives.

I think our committee should go there, because once members are there and they talk to the real people, those people will tell them what the real problems are. The problem is that the politicians are trying to solve very complex problems. I understand that, Archbishop. But do you know what the real problem is? Yes, it is oil, but no matter who's there, oil is going to be used to fuel war because someone believes that if you've got enough money from oil you can beat the other person militarily. That's the problem.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Joe Fontana: I suggest that there's a consensus around this table already that there are a number of conditions the international community could impose upon the IGAD partners and the Government of Sudan to move beyond the principles—which are beautiful—and to move to the implementation of the IGAD forum.

• 1710

You're right, Archbishop, it is going to take a third party. I've always suggested that Canada be that third party, because we are a member of the forum. The United States should be. Egypt and Libya, who have an awful lot of influence, obviously have to get to the table. But you know what the real problem is, in my opinion, Archbishop? The silence of the world is deafening. Nobody cares, I'm sorry to say.

Maybe you can tell me, but I think the solution for a ceasefire, for bringing people together, is there. The United Nations or the international community, hopefully with Canada at its leadership, can bring peace or a ceasefire and can get everybody to the table if we can in fact get the United Nations and the international community to care about Sudan.

I might be wrong, but ever since September 11, I think the world has changed. In a sort of curious way, there is an opportunity here now that the world understands how vulnerable we can all be because of what's happened. If you take that great coalition that is now being formed because of September 11, I believe Sudan, like the Middle East, all of a sudden does become important to the world. Now is the time to be able to say to the United States, which needs to be engaged, or to Canada and the United Nations, that now is the time for the world to wake up to what's happening in Sudan. How many more millions of people have to die or have to go hungry before somebody wakes up and says this is important?

So I agree totally with what you're doing, and that the third party has to be the international community. I'm just wondering whether or not... and I'd suggest, Archbishop, that your voice is absolutely important. I met Bishop Gassis when I was there, and I know of the fine work you're doing. You need to take this message to the United States and to the United Nations, just like we have to, because unless the world gets engaged, Sudan will always be somewhere else. Something else will always be more important.

Chair and this committee, you've already made the decision to go. In my respectful opinion, Colombia is not the priority. Drugs and the problems that we're having in Colombia are a problem, but Sudan is the issue. If you go, I think the world will listen. With Canadian parliamentarians going into southern Sudan and talking to the people... Never mind what the government of the north might do. They might not even let us go there, but let them try to stop us from going and listening to the people. That will send a message around the world that will resonate, and I think that's how we can start.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Bishop Peter Coffin: It probably wouldn't hurt if you went north as well.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Oh, no, we want to go to the north, too, but you have to go to the south first, then you go to the north.

Bishop Peter Coffin: Canadians always want to know that it has been balanced.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Marlene Jennings): Mr. Fontana, your time is up.

Archbishop, if you have any further comments or observations that you'd like to make, we're nearing the end of the meeting. That was the last round of questions, so I'll allow each of you a few moments to make a concluding statement before I adjourn the meeting, if you wish.

Archbishop Joseph Marona: Thank you very much. I would like to conclude by thanking the last speaker for the truth he has made known to all of us. This is really what has touched us, has touched me.

I can say a real brother is the brother who helps somebody in need. I think this is exactly the picture we want to paint in the minds of the warring parties. Each one wants to win the war, so it has gone for many years. But there is no victory.

• 1715

This is exactly the problem. We are talking about the oil because it is the present thing. If we have enough money, we want the oil to help us and we will generate a lot of money. We are threatened in the mind of the world, so let us finish with these people so that we may enjoy the outcome.

These are some of the things we should really... if we end with what he has said to me, then this meeting has been very successful. I would like to thank all the listeners and all those who have participated in this presentation.

We'll continue. I call upon each one of us to continue to pray for the situation. If you are not in pain, you cannot cry for others to listen. The Bible says to weep with those who weep. This is why we came.

This is why I am here in Canada. The distance is so great that I could not have come if not for my brother here, so I would like to thank him for inviting me to attend such a meeting as this. This is my first time attending a meeting of a subcommittee on human rights. This committee is the right committee to see what suffering people are seeing in Sudan. So thank you very much.

I don't know whether my brother has any comment.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Marlene Jennings): Bishop Coffin.

Bishop Peter Coffin: I'm just very grateful that you have allowed the archbishop to come in to tell the story.

The churches in Canada do in fact do a lot of their human rights work by coalition. I'm sure you see some of the stuff our coalitions produce. Sometimes that stuff has solutions, sometimes it's short on solutions, but it's big on telling the story. That's one thing we do as an international organization. We've been around for a long time. Our intelligence you might debate, but we work at it, and our hearts are the right place.

We see folks like all of you. There might be varied opinions, but you're still here working on the issue. We in the church also wrestle ourselves to the floor over issues. But the fact is that you're actually doing it. You may not agree, but it's really encouraging to some of us to know that, even in the lack of agreement, you care enough to actually fight with it. That's important.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Marlene Jennings): On behalf of all of the members of this committee, I would like to thank you, Archbishop Marona, and you, Bishop Coffin, for having come here before us, and for having shared your views and the views you're expressing on behalf of many people in Sudan who are working for and trying to achieve peace there.

As you can see, the issue of Sudan and what is happening in Sudan is of importance to all members of this committee. As you so wisely stated, while there may be disagreement, I think there is good faith, interest, and concern on the part of everyone sitting at this table. It's when there is open dialogue and a presumption of good faith on the part of others that we do find solutions.

I'm very pleased that you support this committee's decision to travel to Sudan. Obviously, we as a committee will probably seek your assistance in ensuring that when a delegation does go, you will see that we have a heads-up as to some people, organizations, or representatives who would be of interest and would be important to meet.

On behalf of everyone here, I wish to thank you, and peace be with you.

The meeting is adjourned.