Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2008

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's clear as mud.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, there is some more time, but I would like to ask one question.

You have made reference to Talisman retracting from or coming out of Sudan. We know that PetroChina then subsequently moved in. As Mr. Obhrai just stated, a lot of people here in Canada were not just so much calling for corporate social responsibility from Talisman, but for a full withdrawal, and that happened.

How has Talisman's leaving and China's coming in affected Sudan in terms of human rights?

[Ken Sunquist]

I'm not sure anybody wants to give you that answer on this end.

Let me give you a personal observation, perhaps. I think Talisman as a company in Canada and worldwide today is a great example. Maybe they've learned through the school of hard knocks. I think Talisman, as the parliamentary secretary has said, is a company that is now a leader. With several other particularly petroleum-based companies, such as Nexen and others, Talisman has really gone out of its way to develop a group of companies in Canada by working with Transparency International and other groups to really address these kinds of issues, so that's been very good.

If you are asking me to be honest about whether Talisman's withdrawal has improved the situation in Sudan, I would say probably not. Talisman is a company that was on the road to making changes. Would they have done it staying in Sudan? I don't know. People here could answer that better than I.

At least it was the company we knew and the company we could talk to. Several of you talked about engagement. Do you have the same level of engagement today as you did 10 years ago, in terms of trying to promote...? I don't know; maybe others can tell whether the same schools and hospitals are still operating. Humanitarian needs were happening then.

I don't know. Maybe I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Can I ask one more on our time here?

You also mentioned that before Canadian companies, specifically oil companies, go into some of these countries, the Department of Foreign Affairs or CIDA or whoever--I suppose it's Foreign Affairs and International Trade--sits down and very clearly talks about corporate social responsibility. They probably show them different ways in which they can be better social and corporate citizens in those countries.

Is there any way of evaluating Canada in comparison? Which would be the real model country? Would it be Norway, would it be Canada, would it be the United States? Which country would be the model country in terms of showing corporate social responsibility internationally?

[Ken Sunquist]

I'm biased, but I'll tell you that Canada is the best. And it's partly because, as former chairs of the committee have said, Canada took up the CSR issue much earlier than a lot of other countries. We addressed it specifically. We have addressed it in terms of corruption. We moved fast on the environment. We've done other things. As well, there was a push on us. Canada is the leading country in the world of extractive industries--the mining industry.

The Toronto Stock Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange are where the world comes for financing, so in a way, we were mandated to meet with companies, talk to companies, and talk about CSR from the word go.

Our senior trade commissioners around the world—and you know the stories, whether it's in the Philippines, Central America, or wherever it is—are meeting with the junior mining companies and are meeting with the large companies continually. Large companies, generally speaking, follow CSR principles from the word go. It's just not worth it to them. Some of the smaller ones, which tend to get in and out of a country quickly, have different perspectives, but we have to work with them. It's Canada's image, it's Canada's reputation, and ultimately it's the companies' bottom line. If they do a good job, they will be invited back there and to other places too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sunquist.

We want to thank the panel for being here today. We appreciate it.

We're going to suspend for about two minutes and then welcome our next group of folks to our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good afternoon.

In our second hour we will hear from the Canadian Economic Development Assistance for Southern Sudan group, David Tennant, the executive director; from the Sudan Divestment Movement, Daniel Millenson, the national advocacy director of the Sudan divestment task force; and from STAND Canada, Ira Goldstein, national divestment coordinator. Welcome.

I know that some of you were here for the earlier segment, so you understand how this works. We look forward to your comments.

We want to have about five minutes for committee business to deal with the steering committee's report we want to ratify. We do have votes as well. It's a half-hour bell. We hope to be out of here by about 5:25.

We really do look forward to what you have to say, so thank you for coming.

Go ahead, Mr. Tennant.

[David Tennant, Executive Director, Canadian Economic Development Assistance for Southern Sudan]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should explain that I'm not with the Canadian divestment group. My organization is Canadian Economic Development Assistance for Southern Sudan.

I want to thank the members of the committee for this invitation. I hope my experience and comments will be helpful.

In January 2005 I made my first trip to south Sudan. A peace agreement had just been signed between the north and south that ended a 25-year civil war, a civil war that had taken the lives of millions and displaced millions more. Since 2005 I have made between 10 and 12 visits to south Sudan. I just returned in January, and I leave again in March.

Our organization, CEDASS, Canadian Economic Development Assistance for Southern Sudan, is focused on humanitarian aid through economic development. The philosophy is simple: rather than give a person a fish, you teach them to fish.

Let me address this in three segments: what we have done, where we are, and where we are going.

On my first trip to south Sudan, I hired a young Sudanese. We purchased vehicles and SAT phones and left money to start purchasing a product known as gum arabic, a product that I had never heard of before I went to Sudan. The product is harvested from the acacia tree and is indigenous to south Sudan. This is a tremendous resource for south Sudan. Gum arabic is used throughout the world in a myriad of products and industries, and is the key ingredient in the making of Coca-Cola.

After facing every logistical challenge imaginable, in the spring of 2006 we exported the first shipment ever of gum arabic from south Sudan--not through Port Sudan, which would have been so much easier, but through Uganda, then Kenya, to the port of Mombasa. Following this, we re-examined and took apart every aspect of the operation to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the business plan. We recognized the need for a strategic alliance with one of the major international importers of gum arabic if we were to grow the industry.

In 2006 I was appointed as a special adviser to the Ministry of Commerce, Trade and Supply of the government of south Sudan in the area of international trade. CEDASS decided at that time to introduce mechanized farming to the bay area of Bahr al Ghazal. Farming in this area, indeed in most of south Sudan, is done by hand, the result being very low yields per acre.

The irony of south Sudan is that many people are starving, yet there are hundreds of square miles of land. Given the right application, and applying Canadian farming expertise, we believe the land is capable of feeding the population.

In April of last year we held our inaugural fundraising dinner. Minister Peter MacKay, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, attended as our keynote speaker. We were able to raise sufficient funds to purchase, on the advice of Canadian farming experts, walk-behind tractors. We also set up a business plan and model that will allow the program to become self-sustaining.

With regard to the gum, we have made a strategic alliance with an American company, the largest importer of gum arabic in North America and the second-largest in the world. This contact has led us to brokering the sale of approximately 1,000 metric tonnes of gum arabic from the Upper Nile region of south Sudan. We also are in the final stages of due diligence in a joint project in Bahr al Ghazal with the American company.

All the profits made by our organization in gum and farming will obviously be returned to the community for humanitarian purposes.

In December 2007, CEDASS was granted 1,000 acres of land by the government of south Sudan in the Juba area of Central Equatoria State. Our vision is to create a training farm where southern Sudanese can be introduced to and trained in modern farming methods and land cultivating, which will help feed the people of south Sudan. This project can open up the Juba area, which is 20,000 acres of fertile land. Given that it is adjacent to the Nile, we have the advantage of a constant water source.

CEDASS will bring in the experts. To give the committee some idea of the experts we have recruited since December, Mr. Jack Wilkinson, a Canadian and the president of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, a worldwide organization, has agreed to act as an adviser. We have put together a project team that includes active farmers, academics in agribusiness, and business leaders. The key to this project is the business plan that will be established, which will provide for a self-sustaining farm operation able to grow from revenues as opposed to donations.

With respect to where we are going, CEDASS will continue to look for opportunities that can create self-sustaining operations. These operations will generate jobs, which in turn will generate wealth, and which hopefully will help to create an economy operated and controlled by the south Sudanese. By concentrating on training and financial assistance to south Sudan, we avoid what I refer to as “economic colonization”.

As part of my mandate as an adviser, I will encourage Canadian business to think of south Sudan as an investment opportunity, where corporate goals in regard to profits can be achieved and, in addition, provide training, education, and capacity-building to the south.

In December we were asked by the President of Southern Sudan to deliver a letter to Prime Minister Harper thanking Canada for its ongoing support. President Salva Kiir Mayardit is anxious to visit Canada and would also like to see ministers of this government visit south Sudan. We would be happy to help achieve this visit and are prepared to assist in any way.

During the many visits I have made to south Sudan, I have developed a passion for the people of south Sudan, a people who have the ability to survive, the likes of which I have never seen, and possess an optimism that is beyond comprehension. They are not looking for retribution, Mr. Chairman; they are looking for opportunity.

We as a country should strive to help them achieve it. Canada is a generous nation populated by a compassionate people. In Sudan, there are countless projects and situations that cry out for international help and aid. In my opinion, Canada should be proud of what it is doing and what it has done.

I believe we have to be judicious, however, and prudent in the projects we involve ourselves in. As this committee knows, Canada has committed over $440 million to south Sudan, which includes $285 million to assist in the settling of the Darfur crisis. This is significant. Canada's policy of working through NGOs and the Multi-Donor Trust Fund is the right policy and it should continue.

I would like to make three recommendations.

First, all projects presented to CIDA or other Canadian government agencies should be accompanied by a detailed business plan. Individuals, NGOs, or other institutions should be required to demonstrate their expertise, especially those projects that require knowledgeable, not just well-intentioned, people to operate them.

Rather than divest, I would encourage Canadians to look at south Sudan as an area of business opportunity. There is no doubt that Canadian business people can survive and do well in this country and at the same time assist in the capacity-building, economic development, and employment.

The third and last one is that we should create a central registry of all NGOs and companies operating in south Sudan to provide better liaison between the different bodies.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to address you. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Sudan Task Force. They have been a tremendous source of information for us and have made themselves available to us at all times. I would also like to thank CIDA and CIDA Inc. for the information they have provided and their offer to act as a resource.

I hope my comments and recommendations will assist you in your deliberations. We, CEDASS, will go forward with the Juba project and we'll raise funds in the private and institutional sectors. We think this is good for south Sudan and we believe it is good for Canada.

South Sudan survived the war. It is up to us to do what we can do to make sure it wins the peace by reaching its potential.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Tennant.

We'll move to Mr. Millenson.

[Daniel Millenson, National Advocacy Director, Sudan Divestment Task Force, Sudan Divestment Movement]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today.

I represent the Sudan Divestment Task Force, which is a project of the Genocide Intervention Network. We're an NGO that is based in Washington, D.C. We also have offices in London.

Our organization primarily focuses on a model of targeted divestment we have developed that focuses on ameliorating the situation in Sudan by placing targeted economic pressure on worst-offending corporate actors, primarily those in the oil, mineral extraction, power, and military equipment sectors.

Before I begin, I would like to piggyback off the previous testimony by saying that we actually encourage investment in southern Sudan and eastern Sudan and Darfur and other marginalized areas of the country.

This is a model of divestment that has been adopted by 22 states in the United States. The federal government in the United States recently passed divestment and contract prohibition legislation that we authored, and international pension funds, including one Dutch pension fund, have also started to look into the matter and divest. It's a model of divestment that encourages investment in marginalized regions while focusing exclusively in those areas that actually benefit the regime.

This is a regime that is exceptionally vulnerable to economic pressure. Its foreign debt exceeds its gross domestic product, and with its overwhelming reliance on oil—90% of its export revenue comes from oil—it makes sense why up to 70% of that oil revenue then goes toward its military expenditures.

Sudan, though, does not have the technical expertise to exploit its own oil resources. For that, it relies on a small subset of foreign oil companies—primarily, a majority are wholly state-owned companies from China, Malaysia, and India—to drill and provide the profits necessary to prosecute the war in Sudan.

There is such a thing as responsible investment in Sudan. As was mentioned in the previous panel, Montreal-based La Mancha Resources is the largest mining company in Sudan. It primarily operates a gold mine in eastern Sudan. After being on our highest offenders list for several months, it became receptive to engagement and decided to take a number of steps. This is precisely the type of corporate presence we want in Sudan.

Sudan is China's fourth largest provider of oil; we don't see China leaving Sudan any time soon. It is the same with India and Malaysia. But there are ways that companies can use their influence for good, use their economic leverage to help end the atrocities. La Mancha is a great example of that.

The company publicly refrained from any new investment in the country—they had previously planned to do a multi-million dollar mine expansion, which would have given the Government of Sudan a lot of new revenue streams—until a peacekeeping force consistent with Resolution 1769, UNAMID, fully deploys unimpeded. They have also committed to funding humanitarian efforts in Darfur in addition to what they were already doing in eastern Sudan, even though Darfur is on the other side of the country from where they operate. They also met with Sudan's then-minister of Energy and Mining, Dr. Ahmed Al-Jaz, to discuss the situation, urging the Government of Sudan to again allow the UNAMID force access to the region.

That's the exact type of the operations we want to see happening in Sudan. Unfortunately, foreign companies, primarily these Asian companies, have done quite the opposite.

I would point your attention to one specific company, and that is China National Petroleum Corporation, which operates six of the seven active oil blocks in Sudan and has also invested in a couple of others that are currently in the exploration phase. It facilitates weapons transfers to the Sudanese regime and allows its facilities to be used as staging points for attacks by the government on civilians. It also refuels military aircraft.

Sudan's air force is primarily Chinese and Russian equipped. Iran also provides some small arms. In fact, this government, which partially funds an NGO called the Small Arms Survey, has done a really excellent job of documenting just that, as did the Harker commission in 2000 when it investigated the Talisman case.

A question about the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company was brought up earlier. CNPC is the operator for that consortium and for most of the other major consortiums currently doing work in Sudan. The total number of people who have been displaced as a result of CNPC's drilling in Sudan is well above 15,000. There is, however, an ability for this government to change that. There are several things that Canada can do.

First, it can join the targeted divestment movement that's already well under way in the United States. Many of Canada's public pension plans may be invested in these foreign companies and therefore have power as shareholders to change the behaviour of those companies in Sudan. They can also, if those companies prove unresponsive, divest and hit their share price.

Second, CNPC, as was alluded to before by a question from MP Dewar, currently has 11 oil blocks in Alberta in the tar sands. None of them is currently operating yet, but they've expressed interest in acquiring several more. ONGC, which is the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, India's primary oil company operating in Sudan, has also expressed interest in drilling the tar sands in Alberta.

On New Year's Eve, President Bush in the United States signed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act. That act prohibits contracts from going to companies that are considered highest offenders, that meet the criteria for having a harmful presence in Sudan and have refused to take any actions to address that.

Perhaps more so than any other western country, because of the Alberta tar sands contracts, Canada has unique leverage, truly a more important type of leverage, to engage with CNPC to make it stop the displacement, stop the weapons transfers, stop refuelling military aircraft, and most importantly, pressure the government to end these atrocities.

In many cases, state-owned enterprises follow the lead of their home country governments. In the case of Sudan, CNPC is actually, in some ways, leading China's foreign policy. China protects Sudan at the UN and China gives weapons to Sudan to the extent that it does because of CNPC and for very little other reason.

I would urge this government to use its unique position of leverage to seriously engage with CNPC to make clear to CNPC and ONGC and any other state-owned enterprise or other company involved with Sudan in problematic ways that doing business in Canada must be contingent upon respecting human rights in other parts of the world where they're operating.

Thank you very much, again, for allowing me to testify. I would be happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Millenson.

Mr. Goldstein.

[Ira Goldstein, National Divestment Coordinator, STAND Canada]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to present before this committee.

For the past two years I have worked closely with students and citizens across the country for a common cause, to mobilize a critical mass of Canadian students, citizens, and decision-makers to end the crisis in Darfur and respond to future threats of genocide.

The standing order before this committee is an important step towards more meaningful government action on the crisis in Sudan. As the national divestment coordinator for STAND Canada, I oversee grassroots campaigns at the local, provincial, and federal levels. The goal of these campaigns is to investigate public and private holdings and companies operating in Sudan to facilitate shareholder engagement and identify ways to pressure the Government of Sudan to bring an end to suffering in Darfur.

Many of you seated around the table have received letters, phones calls, and e-mails from your constituents on these issues. They are concerned about the crisis in Darfur and Canada's role in ending the suffering there and promoting a lasting political settlement to the crisis. This case is exceptional in the international landscape of gross human rights violations. Canadians realize that and want our country to play an integral role in the fight to end continued mass killing and displacement in Darfur.

Thus far, international efforts to broker that settlement have faltered. I know that today's proceedings will provide the committee with concrete initiatives, as we've already heard, that the Canadian government can undertake now to expedite a resolution to that crisis.

Today I bring to you the message of my organization and its stakeholders. Students Taking Action Now: Darfur is a truly national organization with over 70 chapters in high schools and universities from coast to coast. Our chapters are a vibrant part of the communities they are in, and our organization works closely with citizens, decision-makers, and local, provincial, and federal governments—thousands of young and enthusiastic students engaging in a common cause, sending thousands of letters, and making thousands of phone calls to your offices with one message.

The details of this message are clear and simple: one, Canadians care about Darfur; two, Canadians want their government to take a leadership role in resolving the conflict there; and three, Canadians want to know that their investments are not making an already terrible situation in Sudan worse.

The message is clear, but how do we attain these lofty goals? Individual investors, university administrators, and investment fund managers have all taken action. The British Columbia Investment Management Corporation is engaging the companies it holds that are operating in Sudan to clarify their operations there and to ensure that these companies have corporate social responsibility policies that govern their operations in crisis zones. Student and community activists in British Columbia can be credited for this success.

Queen's University took concrete steps to regulate their investment portfolio in March 2007. As a precursor to a larger ethical investment strategy, they divested from certain companies with strong ties to the Government of Sudan. The students at Queen's, myself included, wanted transparency in the investments of the institutions they are a part of and demanded action from the university administrators. Students are demanding action across the country—at the University of Ottawa in the capital city, the University of Western Ontario in London, Laval University in Quebec, Memorial University on the east coast, the University of British Columbia on the west coast, and many more.

Finally, private investors across the country, from elementary school teachers to film and television producers, independent musicians, fund managers, and business consultants contact us on a weekly basis. They want to learn more about their personal investments and companies operating in Sudan and how some of those companies fuel the conflict in Darfur. Citizens in civil society organizations are facilitating this engagement process. The Canadian government should enact a legal framework regulating public fund investment in companies that are fuelling egregious human rights violations.

The research is ongoing and the facts are clear. Certain companies operating in Sudan are aggravating an already dire humanitarian crisis. Canadians need leadership on this issue. Canadians want a formal government-approved process whereby they can make these tough investment decisions. The result will be widespread shareholder action, engaging the companies that are responsibly contributing to the economy in Sudan and divesting from the companies that are fuelling the crisis there.

Canadian investors are in a unique position because of Talisman Energy's experience in Sudan. In my capacity as a coordinator of the Sudan divestment campaign, I recently spoke at length with the senior manager at Talisman Energy in charge of corporate social responsibility. Before Talisman's experience in Sudan, no such position existed on their board and social responsibility was not on the company's radar. He commented that I would be hard-pressed to find a similar meaningful position on the board of the Chinese and Indian companies operating in Sudan, and I think he is correct.

The Talisman experience shows that corporate social responsibility will never be a priority for any company unless it is either demanded by its shareholders or mandated by the government. In the case of private companies, there are no public shareholders to speak up on these issues; the only consideration is the company's bottom line.

Investors across the country are doing their job. Now it's time for the government to act. The Canadian government should mandate CSR standards and reporting obligations for Canadian companies consistent with the final report of the National Round Table on CSR, which we heard about earlier. Almost a year after the report, no formal government response has been issued.

But ensuring basic human rights standards starts at home. Numerous companies operating in Sudan with close relationships to the Government of Sudan are also operating in Canada. The Canadian government is in a unique position to leverage those relationships with the goal of engaging the Government of Sudan—an historically challenging proposition.

The extent to which these companies do business in Canada should be contingent on their operations in Sudan. If a company is fuelling violent escalations by the Government of Sudan's military forces, as news agencies continue to report new hostilities in Darfur detailing hundreds of deaths and thousands displaced, then that company's contracts with the federal or provincial government should be examined. Government contracts with companies operating in Sudan should be examined. The Canadian government should make doing business in Canada contingent on a company's governance policy and historical practice of corporate social responsibility.

In closing, let me reiterate the main recommendations in my brief. One, public investment should be audited, and investments in companies operating in Sudan should be examined. A public government statement on these issues is what thousands of Canadians are waiting for.

The Canadian corporate social responsibility framework must be implemented to ensure compliance at home and abroad, and the spirit of that framework should be applied to government contracts in Canada with foreign companies that also operate in Sudan.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much to all three presenters.

I've just been given a little information that is different from that at the beginning. We will have bells at 5:15, and it's not a half-hour bell, but a 15-minute bell. That's the information I have.

In order to go beyond that, we need unanimous consent. We may go five minutes beyond 5:15, if I have the consent to do it. Is that fair?

All right, that's carried.

We'll go quickly into the first round.

Mr. Martin.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you all very much for being here.

Mr. Tennant, I agree with you. Flying up the White Nile, all I saw was tremendous economic opportunity for the people of Sudan. I certainly share your views of the Dinka and Nuer who are there and their extraordinarily resiliency. When I was down there, I thought, these people will do just fine if they're free of conflict and are able to have a bit of opportunity to fend for themselves.

We all know that conflict is the enemy of development, and I'm deeply concerned that the CPA will fracture before or after the referendum. Can you give us any insights, from your perspective, as to what will be required to ensure that the CPA will be strengthened and not fall apart, and what role Canada might play in ensuring that will happen?

A question I posed to the previous group was that perhaps there's a way--and I don't know whether you have any opinion--for Canada to try to take a leadership role in engaging with the Chinese and the members of GNPOC to replace their oil assets from Sudan with another source, such as Nigeria or Angola. Any insights you have on that would be appreciated.

[David Tennant]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

As you know, there have been some difficulties with the CPA over this winter, and they seem to have settled down. With all of the people I talk to, both in community groups in Sudan and the government of south Sudan, there are probably two messages that are consistent.

First of all, the people of south Sudan did not want to go back to war and they want the comprehensive agreement to work. The problem is the frustration they feel from what they verbalize as the continual frustration imposed by the government of the north in not living up to all of the conditions and terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement—which I also think is having an effect on Darfur. The people of Darfur are asking why they should enter into an agreement similar to that which was done with the south when the comprehensive agreement in the south is not being lived up to.

I think it is 50-50 as to whether the comprehensive agreement will hold. I think there are obviously not going to be elections in 2008, because money has not been released by the north for the census. Will there be in 2009? I don't know. But there is the big vote in 2011.

With respect to the oil fields, I heard in the previous session comments about Talisman. I have no interest in Talisman. I'm a businessman, but I have no interest in Talisman.

But I would say this. I think we have to be very careful. We have replaced Talisman with a conglomerate that has no interest in the environment, has no interest in human rights, and we have no persuasive powers over them. Can we get that persuasive power? I think that is more up to people like you than it is up to me. But I have people who come to me in south Sudan and tell me that they are blocking and damming rivers. In my opinion, their objective is to pump as much oil as they possibly can before 2011.

I hope that answers your question this morning.

[Daniel Millenson]

Perhaps I could comment briefly on the oil consortium issue.

Talisman was forced to sell its stake to ONGC of India, which is one of the companies seeking to do business in Alberta. People are correct. They are a much less responsible actor than Talisman was, and to be honest, it was probably a change for the worse.

However, you can't get much worse than the trio of CNPC, ONGC, and the Malaysian state-owned oil company, Petronas. None of them is going to leave. Sudan is China's fourth largest provider of oil. China is growing so rapidly that they're ramping up operations in Angola as fast as they can as well. They're also looking for other sources of oil, including in Burma and other places where there are human rights situations.

The issue, though, is that many of these companies have exposure to western investors, including Canadian institutions, because they list on stock markets in the U.S. and Canada and Hong Kong, where western investors can have holdings in them. Secondly, the reserves for the 11 blocks that CNPC has in Alberta are estimated at about 2.4 billion barrels. That's about what their current known reserves in Sudan are estimated at. They can't afford to simply leave Canada. This is a great point of leverage to force them to change their behaviour, to be a force for good and to end their abuses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. chair.

I am a bit frustrated to hear about Sudan in the context of the oil companies and their wealth when the reasons why we should talk about that country are the misery of people, the war, the fact that they have been living in camps for many years and that there is no end in sight. Personally, I find that a bit odious.

In fact, we talk about the wealth of the northern countries and about the power of the countries extracting the natural resources but we nearly never talk about the lives of the local people. It is as if they did not exist. I find that intolerable because, at the end of the day, the wealth that the other countries are accumulating is of absolutely no interest to me, if only because this wealth is located in African countries the resources of which we are extracting while leaving the local peoples in extremely dire situations. I listen to you, like I listened to the government officials who were here before you, and it is as if Darfur was not in Sudan. Talking about the companies operating in Sudan without talking about Darfur does not make any sense, as far as I am concerned. Of course, I have never been there and I do not know how people live on the ground but I know that there are people there who live, give birth and die in camps and that we do nothing for them. It is criminal. It is a crime against humanity and it is intolerable.

I will try to calm down and come back to the topic of the day.

Mr. Goldstein, you are part of a group called STAND Canada and you are recommending an embargo. However, all the experts tell us that embargoes do more bad than good for the people. Since we know that there are very few Canadian corporations in Sudan, what would be the point of an embargo? Would it be for us to be able to claim that we have done something in mobilizing Canadian, American and European students? Do you really believe that this situation would be resolved the day the few Canadian corporations operating in Sudan have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mrs. Barbot.

Mr. Goldstein.

[Ira Goldstein]

Let me clarify, first of all, that we don't advocate for an embargo whatsoever or a boycott or anything of that matter. We're in partnership with the Sudan Divestment Task Force and we fully support the targeted divestment approach.

What I did say was that public funds should be audited as to the holdings in these companies that are targeted for divestment, not any company operating in Sudan. I'm strictly saying that companies that are on the highest offenders, as they're called, list are targeted for a specific reason. The same is true with the government contracts, which I said should be examined. Only companies that are providing no measurable good to the people of Sudan and are actually making the situation worse there should be targeted. The other ones, as we said, should be encouraged for investment there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Tennant, very quickly.

[David Tennant]

I think it's terrific to look at south Sudan or Sudan from 30,000 feet. I think when you get on the ground, what do I tell someone who says to me, “I want to do something better for my family. I want my family to have a better life than I had”?

The best way to do that is to provide jobs, to provide employment. Companies operating, companies who are prepared to take the risk and go into Sudan with that attitude, should be materially encouraged, and then they will be welcome in south Sudan. We talk about oil because oil is the thing of the day. Canada has so much expertise in the farming sector. South Sudan was reckoned to be the bread basket of Africa. The farming opportunities for Canadian farmers in south Sudan—that goes right to your point, madam—can feed south Sudan and therefore take away a lot of the pressures brought on by companies who are coming into Sudan with immoral purposes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Tennant.

We will go very quickly to the government side. If this works out, we may even get Mr. Dewar this afternoon.

Go ahead, Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Tennant, I'm so delighted that you're here. I had this very conversation with the previous minister of the previous government. Why can we not invest in a business fashion? As you say, the projects and the details of business plan and demonstrated expertise.... Your company, your involvement, has demonstrated the export of gum arabic, and it is a tremendous experience. Plus what it does is create capacity for people to be independent rather than divest.

My question would be this. Would divesting diminish their ability? Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and other countries have survived sanctions, let alone divestment.

I think my young colleagues have tremendous, great ideas. I love their ideals and their beliefs. But we have perhaps over-estimated our ability to influence some of the other countries. China or India are not going to go away, I agree with you 100%. What are the first things a family wants? It's food on the table, clothes on their backs, and they want to know that if their kid is sick they can get a doctor, and if there is education required, that they can go to school. That is not going to come, in my view, from divesting. It is going to come from investing and increasing the capacity of those people.

I would like to hear your comments on that, as to the issue of investment and divestment.

[David Tennant]

In a very broad brush, Mr. Khan, I would agree with you that divesting is not the right policy. I think we have to be careful and we have to encourage companies that have a moral standard. You're absolutely correct that when you go down to the base level, the people in south Sudan are no different from the people in Canada. And Canada has that opportunity. Canada has that level of expertise.

If I were as young as the gentlemen to my right and left...I feel like the old man of the sea here. For a businessman, for an entrepreneur, south Sudan is an entrepreneur's sandbox. There are huge opportunities, legitimate opportunities, where you can not only make money but you can create capacity-building. The biggest tribute I could ever receive from anybody in south Sudan occurs when they come to me and say, “David, we've appreciated your help, but we don't need you anymore, because you have trained us to do it ourselves.” That takes away from economic colonization, and south Sudan is heading in the direction of economic colonization.