Incorrectly analyzed and stated.
First off, the situation on the ground with Talisman was indeed more complicated than could be summed up in simple testimony in front of this committee, I think, in the few minutes we'll have.
But on the word “genocide” , I would argue that to put forward such a serious charge you would need serious evidence of that, and I have not. I doubt that anyone here has seen evidence of genocide.
There were indeed problems with the mine. Talisman came late to the CSR issue, but they came to the issue, and they came to the issue in the Sudan. They moved to change practices. They were learning lessons and they were moving to respond. They were setting up CSR operations and moving to do more with the community and to look more at human rights.
The company learned a painful lesson and they learned it quickly in the Sudan. That movement, that initiative and that positive sign, was snuffed out when the company left, so I would not accept--and I don't think that most of the committee would accept--the genocide sensationalization of what happened on the ground.
The point is that the company was moving to implement, and that their move to implement, their move to change, their move to adopt better CSR practice, was snuffed out. What came in its place was arguably worse than what was there before.