Foreign Affairs Committee on April 10th, 2008

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I was going to say, Mr. Chair, after a year and a half to two years there, I thought we had--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We do. We do have a better understanding of who we are. That's right.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Well, I like the way you expanded on the analysis after the government question. I think that's important to put that perspective on the table.

How can Canada best support the UN mission? Would it be through the supply of material goods or personnel or both?

[David Mozersky]

I think actually that's only part of the solution. There's also a need to work within the UN, to work in New York, to press DPKO and press the leadership of the mission to do a better job than it's done so far on staying engaged on the political issues. Just to repeat the point, we're not going to get to a solution.

The UN--no, it's not only the UN; it's the UN together with the AU; they have done a lousy job on reviving the peace process. They need to be pushed there. With the North-South Peace Agreement there are specific crisis areas--I mentioned one, Abyei--all along the north-south corridor. Those are the flashpoints. The UN has to be pushed to redeploy its troops from areas that are less volatile to those that are most volatile. That's what makes the most sense.

DPKO is unwilling to do it because it means revisiting MOUs with troop-contributing countries and rejigging the mandate. They're stuck in bureaucratic ways, but they need pushing from international member states and partners.

In Darfur, certainly support with equipment and support with personnel is necessary. But I think, just again, that the missing plank in the solution is really on the political side and there's not much attention, not much focus or outrage, going on about the fact that the political process is stalled and there's really no work going on in the short term to revive it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Mozersky.

A very quick one, Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Our other guest today started to expand on what had changed in the companies, I heard, but more specifically in your company. The corporate and social responsibility is a significant piece of our view on our subcommittee on human rights. Has that report or the development of that report in any way influenced your particular company?

[Martin Amyot]

That's basically where we think the solution is in a situation like Sudan. We think that making Canadian corporations that are operating abroad more responsible for their actions, more responsible for the environmental consequences of the operations they have abroad, more responsible for the employees they hire, train, and use for their operations is a part of the solution. Making them responsible assures that their presence in a country like Sudan is more beneficial than detrimental to the country.

To get back to the point I was presenting earlier, there is currently a shocking demand for most of the natural resources. It's more specifically for oil, copper, zinc, gold, and so on and so forth. So leaving the space in a country like Sudan, which is rich in natural resources, only opens up opportunities to other producers that might not be subject to the corporate responsibility that we've seen improving here in Canada and in the United States, for example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Because there were a couple of people who really wanted to put forward a very quick question--

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

--I'm going to go to Mr. Patry, and if you would give your question and then, Madame Bourgeois, give your question, then we would have both answers.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much. My question is for Mr. Amyot.

You mentioned the social responsibility needed by companies, and I very much appreciated that. I read all the documentation that you sent us today. You have a regional development fund and contribute 4% of your annual profits. You have built schools, medical clinics and so on. We are still waiting for the current government's response on the round tables that were held on mining companies.

Do you agree with the creation of a position of a Canadian ombudsman to monitor all our mining companies working overseas?

I have a comment also for my colleague Mr. Obhrai.

I would just like you to read today in The New York Times, where it says there is a major problem between the south and the north right now in Sudan. In fact, the militia attacked the people to prevent them from going back into the south, to be sure they could not register for a census that could be quite important for the independence of the south.

I just want to let you know about this. It's something new.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for that comment.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

My question is for Mr. Amyot.

As I read your document, I have no doubt that your approach is responsible. But what intrigues me is the joint venture you have with the Sudanese government to the tune of 56%. French involvement amounts to 4% and your company, La Mancha, contributes 40%.

Could you provide the committee with a written explanation of what the 56% interest of the Sudanese government means? What implications does it have?

Then I would like to ask Mr. Mozerski, if possible, to tell us ways to avoid harming companies that seem to have a responsible approach, like Mr. Amyot's, but would target the Sudanese government, which is causing the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Quick answers from our guests.

Mr. Amyot.

[Martin Amyot]

As for the ombudsman, that comes right back to the comment I made before. It is certainly the best way to make sure that the resources being developed in one way or other in a country like Sudan are developed in a responsible way. Canadian companies must become accountable. The idea of an ombudsman moves in that direction. It is much more productive, in my view, than imposing economic sanctions on companies like La Mancha, for example.

As to Ms. Bourgeois' question about our relationship with the government of Sudan regarding the mine, I would say that the situation must be looked at from a historical perspective. Our mine in Sudan has been in operation since 1992. For it to have been in operation from that year, exploration and set-up work must have been done at the end of the 1980s. in fact, exploration started in 1988. At that time, the dynamics were completely different. The AREVA group, based in France, our predecessors who owned the mine at the time, had an association with the French government to develop the mine in partnership with the Sudanese government.

Following up on Mr. Patry's question, I think that the most beneficial way for host countries to develop mining expertise and benefit from their own resources is to become involved in mining projects. That was sort of the approach in 1988 when this project was launched.

Twenty years later, the situation has evolved significantly and is completely different. The only question that we should answer now, in 2008, is this: should a company like La Mancha have to withdraw and leave the door completely open for the government of Sudan to develop the mine? One way or the other, I think we would all agree, the mine is going to continue to be developed, given the very strong global demand for natural resources, and specifically for gold.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Amyot.

Mr. Mozersky, did you have a very quick response as well?

[David Mozersky]

Yes. What we've advocated for in the past are targeted sanctions against those most responsible, not blanket sanctions that can affect civilians in the broader population, but targeted economic sanctions or targeted travel bans against those most responsible for atrocities in Darfur, for poor decision-making within the regime, or for other violations.

The UN Security Council has a sanctions committee on Sudan. It has five reports documenting violations, recommending sanctions. It's fallen on deaf ears in the Security Council and it hasn't been acted upon, but there are ways to target those who are responsible for the decisions and the obstruction without targeting the broader population.

The second point is that sanctions are a political tool as much as anything else, and we have to make sure that if we use them, we make clear to the parties that are being targeted what it is we want them to do, how they get out of it, and what the political path is that we're pushing. And that requires, again, a comprehensive strategy and a coordinated international approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We do appreciate your coming. I think all members of Parliament are being lobbied, and rightly so, by constituents who are concerned about what's taking place in Sudan. I received, just in the last couple of days, 23 letters, I believe from the Walk for Darfur Club at Augustana, University of Alberta, calling on Parliament to take a look at what's going on there and to take action.

We passed a motion, brought forward here, to do a study on Sudan, and this committee is intent on doing that and making some very specific recommendations to the government. It's a comprehensive study on what's taking place in Sudan and Darfur, the plight of Darfur. Like many Canadians, we certainly look forward to making those recommendations.

Thank you for being here and helping to kickstart that study, although we have already been taken with the crisis in Sudan.

We are going to suspend now, and then we're going to move into committee business for a very short period to discuss a budget. We'll just give our guests the opportunity to exit.

We'll also ask that we stop the televised portion of this meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]