SRID Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

º

1610

The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.))

Senator Mobina Jaffer (British Columbia, Lib.)

º

1615

º

1620

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. John Deyell (Regional Director, Eastern Africa and the Horn Program, Africa and Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier (Director General, Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

º

1630

Senator Mobina Jaffer

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

Senator Mobina Jaffer

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)

º

1635

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Senator Mobina Jaffer

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Senator Mobina Jaffer

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

º

1640

Senator Mobina Jaffer

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. John Deyell

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

Senator Mobina Jaffer

º

1645

Ms. Louise Marchand (Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency)

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Senator Mobina Jaffer

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Senator Mobina Jaffer

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

º

1650

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. Keith Martin

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher)

Ms. Louise Marchand

Mr. John Deyell

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. John Deyell

º

1655

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. John Deyell

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Laird Hindle (Desk Officer (Sudan), Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

»

1700

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yves Rocheleau

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Ms. Alexa McDonough

»

1705

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 3, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Pursuant to standing order 108(2), I would like to welcome you to our hearing considering human rights and development in Sudan.

    Tragically, as has been said before, the subject matter of our discussion today bears witness to the longest-running civil conflict in Africa, if not the world. It has really had almost unbearable costs on a human level for the people of Sudan. The costs in that sense are staggering. Over 2 million people have died; over 4 million have been internally displaced; over half a million Sudanese are now refugees in neighbouring countries. From time to time, the conflict has even been referred to as genocide by attrition. I'm not saying anything here that is not well known—and better known to the witnesses before us.

    Fortunately, we are now meeting after certain important steps have been taken since November 2002, including the signing of two memoranda of agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army.

    I'm delighted that we have the expertise of the Honourable Senator Mobina Jaffer, here before us today, to consider this compelling concern. She has been the special envoy of the government and has recently returned from visits not only to Sudan and neighbouring countries, but also after having met with heads of state and others in this regard.

    We also have Anne-Marie Bourcier from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Some of the witnesses have become familiar to us from other hearings. We are delighted that you've come.

    We have Laird Hindle, desk officer for Sudan in the eastern and southern Africa division. We welcome you as well.

    Appearing from CIDA, we have John Deyell, regional director of east Africa and the Horn, from the Africa and Middle East branch; and Louise Marchand, director general for international humanitarian assistance in the multilateral programmes branch.

    I think that covers the witnesses, and we'll now begin with Senator Jaffer.

    Thank you.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer (British Columbia, Lib.): Mr. Chair and honourable members, a great deal has happened in the Sudan peace process since my predecessor, Senator Lois Wilson, last appeared before the subcommittee.

    I very much appreciate this opportunity to appear before you, who are a very powerful panel, to update you on the recent events. You probably know a lot more than I will ever know, so I'm really privileged to appear before this panel.

    I would also like to put on the record that for me personally it's a real privilege to represent our country in this region.

    I would also like to thank Senator Wilson for her work, as we all know that her shoes are very big, and it'll be difficult for me to fill her shoes.

    As you already said, Mr. Chair, the progress towards a peace settlement for this vicious and longstanding civil war took a significant step forward in November 2002, when negotiations were conducted under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Machakos, Kenya.

    The Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army signed two memoranda of understanding that commit, among other points, both sides to negotiating a peaceful settlement to the conflict, allowing for the provision of unimpeded humanitarian access to Sudanese civilians affected by the civil war, providing for general elections within the next six years in both northern and southern Sudan, and committing Sudan to holding a referendum in six years on secession of the south.

    This agreement appears to be working, with significant benefits for the first time in many years. Humanitarian access to southern Sudan is not a major issue for the relief agencies coordinated under the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan. Just last month, the Nile River was opened up to shipments of humanitarian supplies, lessening the financial burden on the donor community of very expensive airborne supplies out of Kenya.

    As of now, the focus of the peace talks is on a small number of the most difficult issues. Most intractable is the status of three disputed areas: the Nuba Mountains, the district around Abyei, and the Blue Nile State, which have been controlled and administered by the north since colonial times but have substantial populations oriented towards the south. Just for your interest, the Blue Nile State is where the bulk of Sudan's known oil resources are located.

    Other issues include the nature of what most observers believe will be the eventual confederal power-sharing structure; the sharing of the proceeds from natural resources, including oil, but far from limited to it; and the nature of the security framework in a post-conflict Sudan.

    The peace talks are chaired by Kenya under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development—except for the discussions on the disputed areas. Because of their jurisdictional nature, those are conducted under the bilateral sponsorship of Kenya and the very capable leadership of former General Lazarus Sumbeiywo, who was the chief of staff of the Kenyan army.

    The latest round of negotiations ended in early May and are set to resume at the end of June. General Sumbeiywo intends to tackle these tough outstanding issues at that time, and all parties have agreed that their goal is a settlement by this summer.

    In January this year, there was renewed fighting between militias in the southern Sudan, and many had feared that if this fighting had escalated, it would have undermined the progress made at the peace talks. However, that does not appear to have been the case. The January round of peace negotiations concluded on February 7, 2003, with agreement on language with regards to wealth sharing and a memorandum of understanding on strengthening the cessation of hostilities agreement.

    In order to verify breaches of the agreement, the parties agreed to an international verification team, based upon a U.S. civilian monitoring team already in the field. When I was in the region, I spent extensive time with this team. I'm very pleased to tell you that the second in command is a Canadian, Mr. George. There is also going to be a strengthened verification and monitoring team, which will include not only the U.S. but also representatives from other official observers of the IGAD peace negotiations, the U.K., Norway, Italy, and the African Union.

º  (1615)  

    As many of you are aware, I undertook an extensive visit to the region in February and March 2003. Supported by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the visit was designed to familiarize me with both the players and the issues from the perspective of those actually on the ground doing the work. The timing of this visit was particularly opportune given that after four decades of war, there appears to be a real chance for a peace settlement to be reached this year. Accordingly, the work by the parties and the supporters of the peace process over the coming weeks and months will be instrumental in both bringing about a formal end to the war and allowing peace to take root.

    I undertook more than 80 meetings specifically related to the Sudan peace process over four weeks of travel in four countries. These included meetings with heads of state, foreign ministers, other related host country officials, the diverse elements of the UN system, women's groups, NGOs, community leaders, the diplomatic community, and those undertaking the delicate and sensitive peace negotiations underway in Kenya.

    I also met with players in the countries most relevant to the process: Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, and Egypt. I'm very pleased to tell you that a Canadian from Manitoba, Marv Koop, is working in the Abyei area with the UNDP to help in the peace process.

    I also spent some time in the largest field hospital in northern Kenya, in Lokichokio, and I'm pleased to tell you the hospital is being administered by a Canadian woman, and there are a number of doctors and engineers at that field hospital working with the Red Cross. I can tell you it was a real pleasure for me to meet these Canadians who are working in the region, in sometimes very difficult situations.

    This introductory mission to the region was by necessity extensive as it was important for Canada to establish its credibility with a broad range of players in close succession of each other so that we did not appear to be favouring any one side in the negotiations. The results of this mission were useful in terms of Canadian policy and in helping to ensure the international community has the information it needs to solidify the peace that will come to Sudan.

    I am also very pleased to tell you that since I have returned, I have met with many civil society people who are from southern and northern Sudan. There is now a very strong civil society group in Vancouver, and on Saturday, here on Parliament hill, I met with almost 100 Sudanese. They have formed a national organization looking at issues of health, education, and women's issues, so we are also forming a very strong group here to support the peace process.

    Clearly Canada's contribution to the peace process is a value-added one. We are providing a vital role that no other country is undertaking at this moment.

    What I discovered in the course of my meetings was that a consensus for peace exists, and that it will almost certainly result in a peace settlement later this year. However, there is also a widely held view at all levels, from government ministers to grassroots communities, that this peace settlement will be imperfect, as it is being negotiated out of necessity by a fairly closed group of participants.

    I also, when I was in the region, met with a number of women's groups, and with Canada and the Netherlands we are looking at having a peace table between the northern and southern women in the region as soon as the peace agreement is signed.

    In order to make this peace settlement work, it is clear that a heterogeneous group of participants will be required in the donor coordination process, and through the department of foreign affairs and CIDA. Our work has already borne fruit in this respect, with a broad-based donor meeting held in the Netherlands in early April.

    I am very pleased to inform you that Canada was identified for its very specific skills, and for its value-added to the region, and specifically, we played a very instrumental role in making sure women were included in all aspects of negotiations.

    Also, while I was in the region, we had very good discussions with Mrs. Garang and the SPLA leadership.

    We have been able to consolidate many of these gains with the visit of the foreign minister of Sudan to Canada between May 11 and 16. This visit was very useful to Canada as it enabled us to definitely establish ourselves as a trusted and valuable interlocutor with both sides to the conflict, a role we have pursued during the history of our involvement in the Sudan peace process and emphasized both during my visit to the various parties in the region and at the Sudan coordination meeting in the Netherlands.

º  (1620)  

    There were several substantive consequences to this meeting. Minister Mustafa publicly committed Sudan to ratification of the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. Minister Graham has had very frank discussions with Dr. Mustafa on human rights issues and the importance respect for human rights by all parties in the Sudan will play in assuring ongoing international support after the peace agreement is signed. This message was reinforced throughout Dr. Mustafa's visit, notably at a meeting at the Department of Foreign Affairs, chaired by Rights and Democracy of Montreal, with key NGOs in attendance.

    During his meeting with Minister Mustafa, the Prime Minister committed Canada to ongoing involvement in the peace process and support for the eventual peace settlement. To this end, we have had substantive discussions with such groups as the Parliamentary Centre.

    If I can just add, 10 days after the peace agreement is signed, thousands of people from southern Sudan will arrive in Khartoum. We are looking to the Parliamentary Centre to see if they could have a kit with some initial education on how Parliament works or how members of Parliament--or whatever they are called--operate so they have something to go with. And we are looking to the Forum of Federations to discuss means by which Canada can offer needed expertise on these issues in support of the development and consolidation of peace in Sudan.

    Though we are a long way from being out of the woods on this war, there has been a great deal of progress in the last year. I can give you my personal assurance that I will do all I can, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA, to maximize the chances of success of the peace agreement the people of Sudan have been without for four decades, at a cost of literally millions of lives.

    Thank you very much.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Senator Jaffer, for that very fulsome statement, which reflects and represents not only your travels to the region but your engagement in the region on these compelling issues.

    We'll move now to Mr. John Deyell, for your presentation, sir.

    Mr. John Deyell (Regional Director, Eastern Africa and the Horn Program, Africa and Middle East Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): Mr. Chair, I was not prepared for a presentation. I am here in the function of supporting the senator in case any clarifications are needed.

    The Chair: Okay. I just wanted to invite any other witnesses, if they wished, to make any preliminary statements before we move to questions by members of our committee.

    So if there are no other additional statements, we can begin our questioning.

[Translation]

    We'll begin with Mr. Rocheleau.

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Jaffer, for your presentation. Welcome, Mr. Deyell.

    I have two questions for the witness. In the last paragraph on page 2, you note the following: “It is clear that Canada has demonstrable value added to the peace process”. Moreover, you make no reference whatsoever, and perhaps for good reason, to a matter often mentioned by my colleague Svend Robinson, namely the case of the Talisman company in which Canada was involved.

    I'd like to know whatever became of the Talisman case, since you make no mention of it. That's my first question.

    Secondly, you state that as part of the peace process, Sudan is committed to holding a referendum in six years on secession of the South. Could you tell us what the justification is for holding a referendum in six years? What is the problem here? If the South were to secede eventually, would this development, in your opinion, cement the peace process rather than lead to renewed violence?

    Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier (Director General, Africa Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Mr. Rocheleau. To answer your question about Talisman, let me just say that the company was sold this spring to Indian interests. A national Indian company purchased Talisman, or the company's interests in Sudan.

    As for Talisman employees working in Sudan, they have all left the country. However, community support services are still provided at the company's facilities. In terms of medical support to the community, services will continue to be assured until 2005.

    I'll let the Honourable Senator field your second question.

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: I just will tell you that while I was in the region I saw some of these facilities that Talisman had built and the two offices that were left behind by Talisman to continue just with the community work--nothing to do with commercial--on education and hospital issues.

    As for whether there will be any disputes if the south separates, it is my absolute hope that Canada will play an important role in making sure, in the six years before the question of whether the south will separate, we empower the people to make that decision. The kinds of things we are looking at are quick-impact programs, such as de-mining. That's why we were very pleased the Ottawa treaty was signed, so farmers can go back into the region, children can go back to school.

    The other thing we are looking at is to make sure people get the information on what is happening with the peace process. One of the things we are hoping is that we can play a small role in providing radio, like UN radio that exists in Somalia, and solar radios, so people can get information in their own language throughout the south about what's happening with the peace process.

    The role Canada and some of the other countries can play is to make sure, during the six years intervening before people have to decide whether they want to separate, that people value peace. When you have not grown up with the culture of peace, you do not know the difference. We believe it will be very important for the donor countries to go hand in hand in making sure people understand peace makes a difference. One of the slogans that has now started being used is “peace through development”. That will be our challenge--to work through that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Why do the inhabitants of the South wish to secede? Do they represent different ethnic groups? Do they speak different languages? Are they that different from their northern countrymen that they want to secede? What would become of the large oil wells in the South? To whom would they belong? Who would manage these facilities?

[English]

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: The people in the south want to go on their own way. They've had a very tough history. I come from that region. I was born in Uganda, so I have an idea of the kind of poverty that exists in that part of Africa, but when I was in the region, I have to say it completely changed me.

    The poorest of the poor live in the south. To give you an idea, in Rumbek, which is a civic administration centre, there isn't even one road. So the south has some very legitimate concerns. They feel they have been neglected. And it has not just been through the Sudanese government; even when the British were in power, the south was neglected. So there is the idea that if they became self-governing, they would perhaps stand a better chance in development.

    I believe that is one of the reasons. But it's like an onion; there are many reasons. There are religious reasons. There are development reasons. There is the war. Then, of course, the south is not one unit, one group; there are many ethnic groups, so that makes it another challenge. If you peel the onion, there are many, many layers to why the south wants to separate.

    As for the oil reserves, that is one of the strongest challenges General Sumbeiywo will be facing under the bilateral negotiations that he is doing with Blue Nile, Abyei, and Nuba Mountain, because, as I said in my presentation, a lot of the oil is in the south. So that is going to be a challenge.

    The Chair: Madame Beaumier.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

    I was looking at the brief that was prepared by Foreign Affairs. It talked about Canada playing an active role that included diplomatic contact and negotiation, peace-building efforts to grassroots measures, and humanitarian assistance.

    We don't even have an ambassador there. We had one of the best ambassadors. Nick Coghlan was probably the best ambassador that we had in Colombia, I believe. He does one heck of a good job. He doesn't even have any status there. How can Canada pretend that they have an influence with a government in power, or can get inside to know what's going on, when we have no representation?

    We have a diplomat, but he has no status. Even the U.S. has status there.

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: Thank you for your question.

    Our ambassador to Sudan does in fact live in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia. However, she does enjoy a certain status and is well represented in Sudan. For the past several years, Nick Coghlan, an experienced official, has been Canada's representative in Khartoum. He's been on the job since Minister Axworthy asked that an office be opened in Khartoum to ensure a more visible presence for Canada and to initiate a political dialogue with local authorities.

    He serves as political adviser to our ambassador and is following developments in the negotiation process. He reports back to us and acts as liaison with our special envoys. He accompanied the Honourable Senator on her travels in recent months.

[English]

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Absolutely, that's my point. My point is that he can accompany the senator, he can accompany us, but there were many places where we went that he would not have had access to if we hadn't been going as parliamentarians and, frankly, if the senator hadn't been going as a senator.

    If we had someone there with diplomatic status, they wouldn't need to wait for Canadians who are senators or members of Parliament in order to have access to some of these people. I think it's a shame.

    I have another question.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: May I answer that?

    You're absolutely right that Nicholas Coghlan is an exceptional diplomat.

    I can tell you that when I was in the region, no one told me that he couldn't go everywhere. He was able to have access everywhere. In fact, one of the proudest moments for me as a Canadian was when the humanity people, who had been detained and had a long trial, said that only Canada showed up every day.

    Nick is very committed.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Yes. I think he's wonderful. I only think that he should have a higher status. I think he should have diplomatic status. I think we should have an ambassador there.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: I am pleased to tell you that we now have a new and better office. I am pleased to tell you that on the issue of ambassadors, those issues are higher up than me.

    I can tell you that from the time you have been gone, Nick has been able to get a lot of resources. We have an exceptional ambassador in Ethiopia, who is also accredited to Sudan, who is also playing a very key role now.

    Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: On a point of clarification, Nick Coghlan has diplomatic status. He is counsellor and consul. He is responsible as well to our office in Khartoum, which is the representation for our Canadian embassy.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Okay. I only think it should be more.

    Was I too subtle for you?

    Mrs. Anne-Marie Bourcier: No.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: I have another question.

    I believe that it was in 1997 that they had their “election”. Shortly after that the Bashir regime approached CIDA. They asked us for assistance in establishing some infrastructure for democracy and for the rule of law there. We turned them down, saying that we didn't have a pocket for that.

    When Canada is known to have some of the best constitutional lawyers in the world and the best human rights lawyers in the world, I'm wondering why we turned it down then. Would we reconsider?

    We tend to condemn the shari'ah law there. You know, we have to cross amputations and such. But would we consider doing that if requested again?

º  (1640)  

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: I am very pleased to tell you that we are playing a very instrumental role in the peace process. CIDA pays for a majority of the peace process that's going on in Kenya. We have provided a constitutional expert. When we were in the region, the ambassador personally spoke to the president and said that Canada was willing to provide more help.

    When I met with the chief negotiator for SPLA, I personally conveyed Canada's message that we would provide expertise. We are waiting for them to ask us what they would like. As you know, our way is not to force someone on them; we are waiting for their request.

    When the minister was here, he met with the Parliamentary Centre and with Mr. Bob Rae to see if we could help with federalism. We have certainly made the offer. We are now waiting to see what they would like.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Thank you.

    Perhaps Mr. Deyell has something else to add.

    Mr. John Deyell: I simply wanted to add that, with what you've proposed, perhaps there was no modality in those days to respond. We certainly are prepared to respond to that sort of initiative now. It fits not only within the idea of establishing the peace, but with consolidating the peace. These are the sorts of opportunities that are being explored.

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: We're smarter and richer now. Is that right?

    The Chair: Madame McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much for appearing. I'm a substitute member on the subcommittee, but a member of the foreign affairs committee, and I'm very pleased to be here today.

    Senator Jaffer, I don't want to read too much into this, but perhaps in diplomatic terms you've indicated in the reporting on your trip and the current conditions in Sudan that the peace settlement is being negotiated, of necessity, by a fairly closed group of participants. And I'm wondering whether partially implied in that is a not particularly active role of women.

    I know this is a topic very near and dear to your heart and I admire your work in terms of women's involvement or non-involvement in peace and security issues. And, of course, Security Council resolution 1325, which goes way beyond just acknowledging the inferior status of women in far too many corners of the world, has been very explicit about the necessity of women being involved in peacemaking and peacekeeping activity because of the disproportionate impact on women, and also as full participants in the society.

    I'm wondering if you could comment a little on the conditions of women, on what prospects there are for increased participation of women, and what Canada may be doing to try to enhance and advance that.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: The conditions of women in the south are horrible. There is nothing there. And as you can imagine, there are many widowed women now and so the condition is very bad.

    As for women being at the peace table, there is one woman from the SPLA, there aren't any women from the north. There is a token, but nobody at the table.

    I have spoken to the foreign minister about our concerns about this. When I was in the region I met with many women's groups, and one of the things the foreign affairs department has undertaken is to hold a peace table with the northern and southern women. I met with northern and southern women to see how we could bring the women together. When I met with some of the women, they were a little suspicious that I'd asked two sides to come, and I said to them that we believed and I'm sure they believed that women can make a difference. And so the meeting started.

    I'm very pleased to tell you that the Netherlands has been doing a lot of work with women, and when I was in the region, they were very generous in saying, we just want Canada to be at the table; we don't want your resources, but we think that with Canada and the Netherlands coming together in a partnership and working with the women, we can look at how we can achieve peace.

    Because I am in constant contact with General Sumbeiywo, what I did offer is that if there are any specific things that the women and, in fact, the church groups as well would like in the peace agreement, they can give them to me, and the general has given me his word that he will make sure he brings them up. It doesn't mean they will necessarily be in the agreement.

    The general knows our concern that there aren't women sitting at the peace table, but it's a continuous process. And as we get more involved, I'm hoping by the end of the process there will be more women involved.

º  (1645)  

    Ms. Louise Marchand (Director General, International Humanitarian Assistance, Multilateral Programmes Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): As part of our future plan in terms of supporting the peace process and hopefully the peace settlement plans, investing in further capacity building is very much at the centre of that. And we have a commitment to focus as well on women's organizations and women's participation in that process.

    As you may know, a major policy of CIDA's work is the attention to women's gender equity and equality. So it's taken into consideration.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I wonder if you could give us some sense of whether there is suspicion or hostility about this. Or, is there some acknowledgement, if begrudgingly, by the inner circle of the elite, that this is an essential part of the peace process and capacity building that is going to be necessary to maintain the peace agreement?

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: It sometimes felt to me that they didn't even talk about it. It was necessary to have women around, and I brought it up, especially in the Netherlands, when in the communiqué Canada insisted that gender issues had to be looked at, that issues of women had to be looked at. And then it had a lot of support.

    As in every country, including ours, sometimes we have to do some training and education. The same exists in the Sudan, and this is where I truly believe Canada can play a role in prodding people, including some other donor nations, to make sure women are at the table.

    The Chair: Karen.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Before I ask my question, we were waiting for quorum because I had a motion that we were trying to put forward. Out of respect for the witnesses, I was a little concerned because you had to wait so long.

    I'm wondering if we can go to the--

    The Chair: We have actually two motions.

    I was going to do that as soon as we concluded our witness testimony, and then we would put it forward for discussion.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: So I can encourage members to stick around.

    The Chair: Yes, you can.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Is that a problem, Ms. McDonough?

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I'm sorry to say I'm going to have to leave at five o'clock. I certainly don't want to be disruptive. I know we're all in this time vise.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: Perhaps it would help if we excused ourselves and came back in five or ten minutes.

    The Chair: No. It's a public discussion.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: It's not in camera; it's a public discussion.

    Can we go ahead with it, then?

    Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Out of respect to the witnesses, perhaps we can finish with what we normally have and then deal with Mrs. Kraft Sloan's issue after that.

    The Chair: I think we have, at this point, your questioning and then I think Mr. Martin, and that would conclude the questioning and we can go right to the report. If it takes more discussion than five or ten minutes, I wouldn't want to hold up the entire witness group. So perhaps we can do that.

    Put your question, Mr. Martin would put his, and we could then move to your motion.

    Mr. Keith Martin: It's going to take time. This is going to take longer than five minutes.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: I don't need to ask a question, then. Madame McDonough has to leave at five o'clock.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you all very much for being here today.

    I want to thank you, Senator Jaffer, for all of your hard work on this important issue.

    I must say, though, that having dealt with this issue in the Sudan, there have been some serious questions about the involvement of Canada and the involvement of CIDA in the Sudan. There are questions of how much money is being spent, where it's being spent, what projects are we actually focused on.

    There's probably not enough time for me to deal with it here, but perhaps you could submit this, please, to the subcommittee. How much money is CIDA spending in the Sudan, and specifically what projects are being funded? And where are those projects towards being completed?

    There's a strong feeling that the focus in Canada and the department, quite frankly, has been on the issue of Talisman Energy. We have completely missed the boat on dealing with the major antagonists in this particular profoundly tragic situation. There's also a notion on the ground that expectations have been raised and obligations have not been fulfilled on the part of CIDA and the part of our government.

    Perhaps you could tell us what CIDA has been doing on the ground in Sudan and why there hasn't been more of an involvement in trying to deal with the major antagonists in the Government of Sudan, in Khartoum, between those and the rebel groups in the south, and also in dealing with the humanitarian catastrophe taking place down there, which we have ignored, in my view.

    Thank you.

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Louise Marchand: Perhaps I will give some information and ask Mr. Deyell to talk from a more bilateral point of view.

    In terms of humanitarian assistance, you may know this and we will be happy to provide complete information on the projects, on the humanitarian and multilateral and bilateral status, and on how much and so on.

    Since the early nineties we have provided $110 million of humanitarian assistance. That's food and non-food. That's through the usual partners, which would include some NGOs, the UN partners, the Red Cross movement. We can provide the detail of that. So that's quite substantive.

    In terms of the peace-building process and peace-building initiatives, if you're familiar with the program in CIDA, you know that the activities tend to be very small. They're very labour intensive, quite demanding in terms of staff work.

    Again, since 1999 we have provided $1.28 million of activities. I won't take the time to go through the activities, for the sake of time, but we will provide that information.

    Towards the larger process of peace building, since 1999, as well, we have provided $4 million at a different scale of activities.

    Mr. Keith Martin: In your submission to the committee, I think the problem has been not that there haven't been commitments but whether that money has actually been spent on the ground and what it's been spent on.

    So when you go back and present that to us, could you actually break that down and tell the subcommittee where specifically those moneys have gone, and also what the objectives are with respect to CIDA in the Sudan. I think that would clarify the situation for a lot of people.

    Ms. Louise Marchand: So where it has gone, how effective it has been, what achievements?

    Mr. Keith Martin: Yes, what were your objectives, were they met, how much was spent on the ground, and also what your future objectives are in the Sudan. I think the people who are involved and interested in this catastrophe would very much like to know that so we can work together towards being as effective as we can be.

    Ms. Louise Marchand: This is my first appearance in front of this committee on Sudan. Have we provided such a report in the past and are we talking about an update? Could you tell me that for my benefit so I know how to organize it?

    Mr. Keith Martin: I'm not familiar with that.

    Mr. James Lee (Committee Researcher): There was a report on this at least a year ago, so yes.

    Ms. Louise Marchand: Then very quickly and without giving the details again, I think building the capacity of Canadian partners interested in working in Sudan has been a focus of attention as well, and the program of de-mining. Again, how much has been accomplished and so on I don't know, but we will provide this information to you.

    John, do you want to add something on the bilateral?

    Mr. John Deyell: Surely. We can probably provide tomorrow or the next day to the clerk the tables you are asking for.

    Mr. Keith Martin: That would be wonderful.

    Mr. John Deyell: As an example of the information that's immediately available, I will give an example of a table I have, which I can share with the clerk. The purpose of the project is strengthening the capacity of traditional leaders and civil-based organizations; the name of the project is Wau Peace and Conflict Mitigation; implementing agencies,Care Canada in cooperation with Care Sudan; project budget, $476,000; project period, 2004.

    We do that for past activities, present activities, and future activities for which approvals have been received, and we can also put that within a briefing note that gives the understanding of the objectives of our interventions.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Keith Martin: That will certainly help our committee. Thank you very much.

    Mr. John Deyell: We can do that within the week.

    The Chair: I want to say to the witnesses, which I do customarily, that if there is any information subsequent to this meeting that you feel you would like to provide to us that arises from the discussion or any of the questions, we would be happy to receive it.

    Alexa.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I have one brief question. You reminded the committee--I think you did. I can't now find it as I look, but I'm sure I heard you remind the committee that Canada has for many years had a policy position of not supporting arms sales to Sudan. Can you comment on where arms to Sudan, which are clearly taking a massive toll on people's lives, are now coming from?

    Mr. Laird Hindle (Desk Officer (Sudan), Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): There are probably two main groups of arms suppliers into Sudan. One would be the more illicit organizations. A lot of weapons have been left over from previous conflicts in Africa elsewhere and are quite easily transported from one conflict to another, one part of the continent to another, and quite a bit of that is in Sudan.

    On the SPLA side, quite a bit of it was captured from the government when they raided various depots or captured a town. Most of their sources are from the illicit or grey trade. As for the government, the majority of its arms have come from a much more legal arms trade, if you will, and the majority of their suppliers seem to be--at least those reported in such things as the UN Register of Conventional Arms--from Russia, from China, from North Korea. There are no real surprises here, and there is also a strong domestic arms production capacity within northern Sudan but more limited towards small arms. We are not talking tanks or missile capability but small arms rather than the larger conventional weapons.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Can we go into the discussion of the motion? I'm sure that if the witnesses wanted to hang around there may be members who have other questions afterwards. It's a little unconventional, I know, but I know Madame McDonough has to leave soon.

    The Chair: No, that's fine. I know Madame McDonough has to leave. If the witnesses wish, we will move into that discussion now, but I'm not sure how long it may take.

    Therefore, before we move into it, I want to thank you, witnesses, both for being with us and sharing your experience and expertise in regard to the purposes of the memoranda of agreement, and for your extensive involvement, Senator Jaffer.

    In fact, I'm delighted that what this hearing focused on was the Canadian connection to Sudan on a diplomatic level, on a humanitarian level. Whether we are speaking of our involvement in the peace process or of the humanitarian relief, or whether we bring our expertise to bear on a federalist approach to human rights protection and the like, I think we are seeing now a more sustained involvement of the Canadian government, also influenced by the visit of the Sudanese foreign minister here and his meeting with government officials and NGOs, as you reported upon, Senator Jaffer.

    Again, I want to thank you all for being here, for sharing, as I say, your knowledge and understanding of this very compelling and sensitive area with us. If there is any further information you wish to provide, we would appreciate receiving it.

    Thank you.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you.

    Mr. Chair—

    The Chair: I just want to mention that we will be pursuing this hearing with the presence of NGOs next week. This is the beginning of a renewed involvement on the issue of Sudan, and next week will be the NGO sector.

    We will move now to the presentation of the motion by Karen Kraft Sloan.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I want to bring to members' attention that there was a news release on Amnesty International's website. It's dated May 29. It says there were:

reports at the weekend of possible US plans for an execution chamber at the Guantánamo facility. While shocking, this would fit with the administration's proposal to try selected foreign nationals in front of executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences. Convicted prisoners would have no right of appeal to any court. No one has yet been named by President Bush to appear before the military commissions, but preparations for such trials continue and officials are being recruited.

    I have another article. It's from the Legal Times, and says:

Private defense lawyers say they are concerned that the Pentagon will bar them from contacting detainees or traveling to Guantanamo Bay. "The Pentagon has made it virtually impossible for any civilian attorney to take one of these cases”...

    According to defence regulations, I guess it is, defendants brought before military commissions are entitled to free military counsel and can request civilian defence counsel if it can be arranged at no expense to the government. However, as indicated from the statement I just read, these civilian lawyers are not going to be able to be in contact with the detainees. So, Mr. Chair, they're going to be placed in a very difficult situation, particularly if they go ahead with these so-called trials. We're talking about execution as a possible outcome.

    There are countries that have been allowed to send delegations to visit citizens in Guantánamo, and they include Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Russia, France, Kuwait, Yemen, Sweden, and Denmark. The question arose last week whether it was appropriate for a Canadian delegation to go, but what I've been able to indicate here is that other countries have sent delegations.

    I want to move the motion, then. I move that the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to request a delegation of parliamentarians visit the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Do you have anything to say on the motion, Alexa?

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Well, I'm very pleased to support it. I don't know whether it needs a seconder or not, but I think it's an important initiative. I think we need to be doing more than mumbling about how we're not in favour of military tribunals that end up with executions and people not even entitled to legal counsel. I think it is a very welcome initiative and I have to speak in support of it.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Keith Martin: First, I would like, after I speak, to have the opinion of the chair, who knows more about this issue than any of us.

    Karen, you and I spoke about this. While I have sympathy with what you're trying to do in terms of ensuring that due process is taking place, I think out of respect to the United States, it's important that a few steps take place first. I think we need to ask them what the juridical framework is that's taking place down there. Rather than simply going down there, I think it would be important for us to ask the U.S. administration what is the framework upon which these people are being tried. If that information is inadequate, then we can go towards pursuing your motion.

    But I think to go to this motion first may not be the prudent thing to do. I would not be in favour of it.

    The Chair: I'd like--

    Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Call the question.

    Mr. Keith Martin: I would like to have the opinion of the chair, actually, on this whole issue because--

[Translation]

    The Chair: Would you care to add something, Mr. Rocheleau?

    Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In light of the disturbing information provided by our colleague, I would be inclined to vote in favour of the motion, except that I'm intrigued by Mr. Martin's position, namely that we need to find out more about what is prompting the Americans to act in this manner, hypothetically speaking.

    However, in terms of the principle involved, I like the idea of eventually sending a delegation of members on site.

[English]

    The Chair: There are no other information responses, so we move right to the call of the question.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Yes, the question.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this goes without saying, but I think it would be normal practice, would it not, for some research to be done to pull together what the state of knowledge is on the current military tribunal form of justice being dispensed, if I can use the term “justice” at all? In this case it would be for background to the committee's work and follow-up.

»  (1705)  

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, if I could intervene very shortly, I absolutely agree with Madame McDonough that this work would be part of any preparation for a delegation like this. I would also like to note, for the committee's interest, that the Department of Justice special investigations unit is currently looking at the situation, and they came out with a report last week about the detainees in mainland United States. They have come out with a lot of very severe concerns just in terms of due process with regard to mainland detainees. I don't know what the status is of their investigation with regard to Guantanamo Bay.

    But that has already been done by the American government, and they have a great deal of concern. There have been concerns issued by the High Court in Britain, and there are a number of UN agencies that have already issued concerns about that.

    So I think that in terms of work on the concerns around the process, there's a lot of documentation already on that.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: I didn't want to interrupt the vote, but I think from a procedural point of view we may have reversed the process, because we should gather all the facts first before we make a motion, rather than make a motion and then seek the facts. So I would regard this as a démarche so that when it is made to the minister, the minister by then will have the facts in his possession and can make the appropriate judgments in that regard.

    As you know, and I mentioned to you before, the United States Department of Justice, with whom I have been in touch--I'm in touch with their Office of Special Investigations--is proceeding to make inquiries not only in terms of mainland United States, but also with respect to Guantanamo Bay, so I think we would not want--to use a term that we don't like with respect to the United States--to be unduly pre-emptive in our representations without having all the facts at our disposal.

    So I take this motion as one for which, at such time as the minister will have to make that determination, we will have more facts at our disposal to allow the appropriate determinations to be made.

    Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Mr. Chair, could I make one other comment.

    I listened to what people were saying last week, and the motion itself is somewhat vague. It doesn't talk specifically; it doesn't say that we're going down there because of issues around people's due process under law. It's been left rather open for that reason.

    But secondly, I would like to point out that as I heard the chair say this morning in the full foreign affairs committee when you were presenting our report, you were saying here's an opportunity to put a spotlight on a very important issue, and I feel more than anything this is an opportunity to put a spotlight on a very important issue as well.

    It's an urgent issue, and I don't think that Amnesty International comes out with these kinds of statements without any due regard for the facts. They also came out with a very important report last week, talking about the increase in human rights abuses in developed countries. They specifically named the United States and Great Britain because of the connection to the war on terrorism and the situation in Iraq.

    I think it's important to shine the spotlight on it, and I think if this motion does anything, it does shine a spotlight down, and maybe we'll have some answers that get into the public domain, where those answers deserve to be.

    The Chair: I've always said that sunshine is the best disinfectant, and so I look upon this as inviting exactly that. I hope we will have, as I said, all the sunshine we need in order to make all the determinations that are relevant. That's all I said.

    Thank you. The meeting stands adjourned.