Debates of Sept. 26th, 2001

Sudan

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, often there are subjects addressed in the House that are very difficult to debate because of their content and because they affect the lives of human beings. Motion No. 246 is such a motion.

I want to commend my colleague across the way who has put this motion on the floor of the House because of the content of the issue that he is raising in order to ensure that we discuss this and continue to discuss Sudan.

The civil war in Sudan is, without a doubt, one of the ugliest conflicts festering in the world. The simple rendition of statistics cannot begin to depict the misery that has been visited upon the people of Sudan. The truly tragic aspect of this war in common with most other contemporary conflicts is that civilians are the main victims.

The roots of this conflict run deep. Some say they go back centuries. As with many conflicts spanning generations, there are emotional scars that make dialogue with those who wish to promote peace a fragile process.

There is little doubt that the government of Sudan has waged this war in a manner that deserves international condemnation. According to the United Nations, nearly two million people have died since 1983 and over four million have been displaced from their homes.

The hon. member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin refers in his resolution to attacks on civilian populations. He also referred to the denial of urgent humanitarian assistance to specific civilian populations. We believe the hon. member has appropriately identified the Sudanese government actions as being worthy of harsh international criticism.

In a conflict of this dimension, there are no easy answers. The sad fact is that on both sides, rhetoric has taken the place of a genuine commitment to negotiate and compromise. The international community has heard both sides in this conflict repeat over and over again that the war cannot be won militarily and yet both sides continue to fight as though this was their only strategy.

The basis of Canada's Sudan policy is support for a negotiated settlement to the conflict. Let us be clear. Canada is saying that peace is the only way of addressing the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Sudan. Peace has to be durable and the only way for a peace settlement to be durable is for it to be negotiated in good faith by the parties to the conflict.

This is one of the key points that causes us not to be able to support the specifics of the motion. Both sides have committed offences in this war. Both sides have used much needed humanitarian aid as a weapon. Both sides acknowledge that the war cannot be won by military victories, but both sides continue to pursue the war with vigour at a very considerable cost to other responsibilities to their constituents. If Canada's Sudan policy is based on supporting a negotiated settlement, we cannot then single out just one party to the conflict for condemnation.

Canada has taken a number of measures. Arms sales from Canada have been banned since 1992. Bilateral development assistance has been terminated, though not humanitarian aid targeted at suffering individuals continue but that aid is not channelled through government conduits. Canada does not promote trade with Sudan.

To date in 2001 the Canadian International Development Agency has provided $4.2 million in food aid to residents of Sudan, as well as $2.7 million in other humanitarian assistance.

Since 1990 CIDA has provided well over $100 million in such assistance through the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan and the Red Cross. Since 1999 CIDA has committed over $2 million to peace related projects for Sudan, as well as $300,000 for the peace talks secretariat. We are involved in peace talks, in that negotiated peace in Sudan.

Canada is working with many other countries. A regional organization in the Horn of Africa, the inter-governmental authority for development, known by its acronym IGAD, has taken responsibility for managing the peace process in Sudan. It has successfully negotiated the declaration of principles, a document that outlines the basis from which negotiations can be staged. This is, by the way, the only document of this type recognized by the major parties to the conflict.

A number of donor countries have formed the IPF, which is the IGAD partners forum, to support the peace process. Canada is involved there both financially and diplomatically. There is strength in numbers and strength in commonality of purpose. The motion before us would isolate us from the concerted position of our partners and prevent us from playing an effective role in support of the peace process.

Another difficulty with the resolution concerns its use of the term genocide, although I know my colleague was very specific in his explanation.

We must sympathize with the motion of the hon. member but we realize that we must not let emotions that are legitimately generated by this grisly conflict obscure our real goal. Our real goal is peace. Our real goal is to assist the process. Our real goal is to ensure that the peace process in Sudan continues and that there is some alleviation to the situation for the people of Sudan.

I am in empathy and I do support a number of the concerns expressed by my hon. colleague but I think it is important to put the Canadian perspective on the agenda.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the debate, but I point out right off that I am no expert in the matter. I wish to express here the opinion of our critic, the hon. member for Mercier, who is out of the country, as well as that of my party, which is that there can be no military solution to the war in Sudan, except through the annihilation of the people of the south.

The member said “Let us stop funding this war and put our weight behind the peace plan of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. First, the Special Economic Measures Act must be amended to give the government the power to act and the credibility it needs to advance the peace process”.

I listened carefully to the member who proposed the motion before us, and he touched on a number of important points. I congratulate him on introducing the motion in the House, because the situation in the Sudan is really untenable. I thank him as well for putting this issue before all members.

Perhaps when he introduced the motion, he did not suspect it would be so relevant. I clearly understood the presentation of the specific context, on the subject of terrorism. This motion is really relevant, and I congratulate him on it.

However, I regret he did not get the unanimous support of the House to have the motion be a votable item. It is all very well to debate in the House, but if the motions are not votable, how can we identify the opinion of the various parties here? Personally I gave the Bloc's approval for it to be votable.

I have, however, some reservation with respect to the word “genocide”. We must rely on the reports coming out of the UN commission on human rights. I also noted that the American congress voted 415 to 1 to condemn the Sudanese regime's continual human rights violations, its support for terrorism and its participation in a genocide.

In the reports by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, the word genocide was never used. I am maintaining a degree of reservation on it therefore, although it is fairly obvious that what is happening at this time is that one group has assumed a dominant position. The group in the south is placed in a virtually untenable situation. I believe that it might be advisable to again look into the use of the word genocide, but I have reservations about using it because the reports we have date back a few months.

The hon. member has merit in presenting a motion that criticizes, perhaps we should not go so far as to use the word condemn, Canada's lack of any real position.

It is easy to take refuge behind a multilateral commission, as the hon. member has just done, but if no actions are forthcoming as a result, this comes down finally to tolerating a situation in which human beings, civilian populations, are being killed and attacked in all manner of ways.

In my opinion, this is position that is hard to sustain. I would prefer to address the position of the Government of Canada. Not to go too far back in time, I have read in the reports that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Axworthy, whom we can now name because he is no longer in parliament, said the following on October 26, 1999:

If it becomes evident that its activities are exacerbating the conflict in Sudan, or resulting in violations of human rights or humanitarian law, the Government of Canada might consider applying economic and trade restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act, and the Special Economic Measures Act, or other sanctions.

I neglected to clarify that this was in connection with the role of Talisman, the oil consortium, which is now effectively financing the war and the present Sudanese government.

Until then, both sides were more or less equal. The war went on, and they had no funding. But with the economic upturn, 25% of the government's income now comes from oil revenues. This, then, is the money that is being used to continue the war between the government and the other community in the south. There is, therefore, a very direct link.

Three weeks after Mr. Axworthy's statement, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report. Minister Axworthy responded that he was deeply troubled by the report.

He decided to send two people to Sudan, Senator Wilson, I think she can be named, and John Harker, to study the impact of oil related activities on human rights violations and on the intensification of the war. The Harker report was presented in February 2000 and its conclusions were in line with the previous reports.

Questioned again, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Mr. Axworthy, responded that he would take no action against Talisman or Sudan. He explained that there was no legislation that would allow the Government of Canada to act. The Export and Import Permits Act was not applicable in the case of Sudan, and the Special Economic Measures Act could only be used in a multilateral context.

This was back in February, 2000, over a year and a half ago. We cannot help but notice that the Government of Canada has taken very little real action, other than simply saying that this requires multilateral action.

I do not want to needlessly prolong my comments. I know that I have one minute left, and so I would like to conclude.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for moving this motion. I would have liked to have had a vote on this so that we could take action on this motion, and so that it could be studied by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and presentations could be heard, especially given the new context since September 11. We are now in the context of a war on terrorism and I think that there have been links made to the groups that are currently being targeted.

I too would like to ask for unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I clearly heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

Is there unanimous consent to make this a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to speak in support of the motion put before the House today by the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.

I commend the hon. member for his ongoing commitment to peace and justice for the people of Sudan. I cannot imagine a situation which cries out more for the world community to act in the name of peace and justice than the terrible tragedy that is occurring in Sudan.

There has been extensive documentation of the horrors being inflicted by the Sudanese government on the people of southern Sudan. In addition to military attacks, people throughout the region must confront the unimaginable horror of widespread famine. I hope the world food program and others will be in a position to respond to the terrible crisis.

I will give members a brief historical background of the situation, as my colleague has done. The extremist national Islamic front regime in Khartoum, which militarily deposed an elected government in 1989, has waged an ongoing savage war and scorched earth policy against the people of southern Sudan and other marginalized areas.

In the most recent phase of the civil war more than two million human beings, overwhelmingly civilians, have died in the south. Another five million or so have been uprooted or internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries as refugees. There are concerns about slavery and about children being forced into military campaigns.

The war conducted by Khartoum is a war of terror. It has involved widespread indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets throughout the south, the denial of food aid to starving people, the abetting of a ghastly trade in human slavery, and scorched earth warfare in the oil regions located primarily in the south.

We must understand clearly that Canada is complicit in these actions to the extent that it allows Talisman Energy Inc. to continue to fund and fuel the terrible assaults on the people of Sudan. John Harker, who conducted an independent inquiry into the situation in Sudan, made it clear that if evidence is made available of a direct link between oil revenues and the war being conducted by the government of Sudan, Canada should take steps to ensure Talisman does not carry on its business in that country.

The evidence is clear, powerful, overwhelming and compelling, yet the government has done nothing at all. The former foreign affairs minister promised to impose tough sanctions if a link were established. That has not happened.

Recently we learned that the Canada pension plan, as my colleague from Saskatoon pointed out, has invested some $57.3 million of Canadians' retirement funds in Talisman Energy Inc. I do not believe the vast majority of Canadians would want one cent of their money invested in a company which is contributing to such bloodshed and violence.

Not only are Talisman's funds contributing to and fuelling the scorched earth policy. We know with certainty that some of Talisman's oil fields at Heglig are being used by the Sudanese military.

A few months ago a Canadian-British team returned from Sudan. The team was made up of Georgette Gagnon, a Canadian human rights lawyer and member of the original Harker assessment mission, and John Ryle, a London based Africa specialist and expert on Sudan. These people were in the oil concession areas of southern Sudan for about three weeks in April of this year. I have a copy of their report, but unfortunately I do not have time to read it in the House.

The key finding of these two respected observers is unambiguous. Talisman's greater Nile concession airstrips are being used for offensive military purposes, not just occasionally but on a regular basis.

This was reinforced by the findings of a Canadian political officer in Khartoum, Nicholas Coghlan, who reported in February of this year:

For the past month there have been two Hind gunships stationed at Unity Field, and interlocutors told me they had been flying sorties almost every day, taking on large amounts of ammunition, and unloading none. Talisman has indicated to the Government of Sudan its unease at this situation and has sought assurances that the Hinds' presence is purely defensive.

The Harker report in January 2000 stated that helicopter gunships and Antonov bombers of the government of Sudan had armed and refuelled at Heglig airstrip and from there had attacked civilians. This is totally incontrovertible.

What more evidence do we need? What more evidence does the government need before it will finally take action? The government says it cannot act under the existing provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act. However it could show moral leadership. It could change the legislation to make it clear to Talisman that Canadians are appalled and ashamed by its conduct in Sudan. It could make it clear that Canadians want Talisman out of that country and do not want it fuelling the war any more.

I would be interested to know the position of the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin with respect to amending the Special Economic Measures Act to facilitate this important step.

In response to my question in the House in May of this year the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that if evidence were brought forward by NGOs that Talisman airfields were being used for offensive purposes by the government of Sudan, the government would take action. How many months ago was that? There has been no action whatsoever.

I will point out something that occurred in the United States in last few days. The Bush administration, tragically, has decided to back away from the Sudan peace act.

The Sudan peace act is an important piece of legislation. It would have required the delisting of shares in Talisman and any other oil corporation operating in Sudan. It was an effective measure. It was adopted by a vote of 422 to 2 or something of that nature. The U.S. senate adopted similar legislation but the Bush administration is now deciding to back off. That is shameful.

Unfortunately we are seeing the one potentially effective tool to put pressure on Talisman being abandoned by the American administration just as it is lifting sanctions against Pakistan to get it on board in the so-called war against terrorism. The price being paid here is too high.

I appeal to the government to abandon its current policy of discussion and constructive engagement with the Sudanese government. It should pursue international measures to hold the government of Sudan accountable for its human rights violations. It should push for strong new legislation and a strengthened Special Economic Measures Act to deal with militarized commerce and hold Canadian companies accountable for contributing to armed conflict. As well, the Canada pension plan investment fund should clearly divest itself of its shares in Talisman.

Having heard the eloquent pleas of colleagues in the House such the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois, I hope the House might be persuaded to give unanimous consent to allowing this important motion to go forward to the foreign affairs committee. I seek unanimous consent of the House to allow that to occur.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that it is a pleasure to stand to discuss the situation that we have been discussing this evening. It is a matter that is foreign to us in Canada, the discussion of the brutality and victimization of civilian populations in the Sudan.

I certainly commend the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin for bringing the matter to our attention. Just the fact that we are discussing it here helps to improve our awareness of the terrible disaster that is going on there. It is hard for us to even imagine what is happening in those countries.

For the last two weeks we have been discussing acts against the civilian population in the form of airplanes crashing into buildings in North America. It has brought us to attention and created a new level of concern. It has changed much of the way we operate and many of the things we took for granted we are no longer able to take for granted. However, these are some of the things that go on in foreign countries such as the situation we are talking about today. It is completely foreign to us how governments and populations can act the way they have in the Sudan.

I commend the previous speakers, especially the last speaker, for the way they have outlined many details of the grievous acts against the populations. There is no question about the brutal tragedy in Sudan.

I just read through a resolution from the United States house of representatives that was provided by the member who moved the motion. The resolution outlines a fearful description of the situation there. I will go through a few of the paragraphs that they raised for public awareness. They condemn:

the National Islamic Front (NIF) government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan, support for terrorism, and continued human rights violations, and for other purposes.

The resolution reads:

Whereas according to the United States Committee for Refugees (USCR), an estimated 1,900,000 have died...

In the U.S. in the last two weeks we saw a horrific accident that took 6,000 or 7,000 lives, which is beyond our imagination. Just take that further to 1.9 million people, mostly civilians, who died over the past decade due to war, war related causes and famine, while millions have been displaced from their homes.

The resolution goes on to say:

Whereas the National Islamic Front (NIF)government's war policy in southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains...has brought untold suffering to innocent civilians and is threatening the very survival of a whole generation of southern Sudanese;

Whereas the people of the Nuba Mountains and the Ingessena Hills are at particular risk, having been specifically targeted through a deliberate prohibition of international food aid, inducing manmade famine, and by routinely bombing civilian centers....

Whereas the National Islamic Front government is deliberately and systematically committing genocide in southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, and the Ingessena Hills;

That is a motion in the American house of representatives which is very descriptive and gives us an idea of the opinion and the feeling in the U.S. about the situation.

We are just getting over the attack a couple of weeks ago on civilian populations in our continent. It has been a tough two weeks. For many people, even those who were not directly affected, their whole way of life has been challenged and shattered, and especially for those who had relatives who were direct victims of the terrorist acts in the United States.

Civilians in the U.S., as they are in the Sudan, were the main victims. The victims in the Sudan are from direct military action and also from the manmade famine. Can anyone imagine a manmade famine that has left millions homeless and nearly two million have died?

As previous speakers have said, both sides say the military cannot resolve the issues. What is the role of Canada? Should we look the other way or should we play a part? In this case I believe the government has failed to provide direct leadership and a consistent, effective policy to indicate our abhorrence for the actions and the events in the Sudan.

Canada should have a proactive solution or proposal for a resolution. We in our country have an obligation to do that, I believe, because of our standard of living and the protections we hold so dear in our standards of life. Once again Canada can play a role because we are seen to be in a very unique position in the world. We are seen as objective and fair and we could help a lot more than we have.

Our party has had a long history of condemning attacks on civilian populations in any country, not only in the Sudan as has been brought to light in this motion. I simply call on the government to finally establish a comprehensive, firm, clear, consistent and effective policy by using economic, diplomatic and even military tools to bring it into the civil war of famine and terror in that country.

Some speakers have outlined the confusion of the Canadian government with respect to dealing with the Talisman Energy issue, where one minister says one thing about the company's involvement in the country and another minister completely reverses it. That is why I say we need a consistent, effective and clear policy from the government. It is time that it was made available. It is time the government took steps to address this.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for bringing up this issue. Because I have only three minutes I will work on dispelling some myths about this conflict and proffering some solutions.

I was in Khartoum earlier this year. The following are my observations. First, this war is less about religion and has everything to do with economics. It is about control of the White Nile, control over timber resources, gold, mining and other resources.

Second, there is a lot of proxy war going on right now. The Ugandans are supporting the SPLA in the south to fight their own internal war with the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda. That is a significant contributing factor in all of this.

Both the SPLA and the government in Khartoum feel at this time that they both have tactical advantages on the ground. In my view neither are actually fully honest in their desire to pursue peace. There are as we know at least three peace endeavours. One is the IGADD process, another is an Egyptian-Libyan process and the third is a Kenyan process.

I would encourage our government to do the following. First it should apply pressure to those governments that are using the Sudan as a proxy conflict. Pressure should be put on the Ugandan government of Mr. Museveni to stop supporting the SPLA. To the international groups and organizations that I believe have been misled into believing that this is a religious war between the Christians in the south who are being beaten up by the Arab-Islamic people in the north, let me say that is a complete misnomer. They should stop supporting the people in the south until the various factions of the SPLA make an honest effort to produce peace.

Second, international communities must tell the government in Khartoum to stop all bombings, engage in an immediate ceasefire, allow relief shipments to go into the south freely and support a peace process among groups in the south that are fighting each other. There is a massive amount of internecine conflict between and among the Nuer and Dinka tribes in the south. It is an issue that is not brought up as often as it should be.

Third, peace and relief operations from the south must be allowed to get into the south free of charge. No longer can the SPLA in the south charge moneys to international NGOs to relieve the suffering. As my colleagues mentioned, almost two million people are poised to die in the next few months. The FAO has said that this is a massive humanitarian crisis. Imagine what would happen if two million people were going to die in North America or in Europe. Yet the international community has largely turned a blind eye to this and allowed this bloodletting to continue. It cannot continue.

On the issue of Talisman, it is the best of a bad situation. If Talisman is removed from the equation the small amounts of resources that are put in for the people on the ground for primary health and education would evaporate. Another country like China would take it over and all the primary health and education in the south would disappear, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other people.

I bring that to everyone's attention. On my website www.keithmartin.org there is actually a complete peace solution to this which I have distributed widely. I thank my colleague for bringing this important issue to the floor of the House.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I was not quite able to conclude before about the wealth of information I have on some of the shameful and evil events that have gone on in Sudan, I would like to remind the House again that a minister of the House, Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister, acknowledged on CBC radio that the situation in Sudan was in respect to Talisman. He said that Talisman had not lived up to its obligations at all and he called the company's behaviour disgraceful.

I referred as well to the Canada pension plan premiums. We could poll every Canadian and I am sure they would say that it was abhorrent that their Canada pension plan funds were being invested in Talisman to the tune of $57.3 million and that this investment was like blood on their hands. Canadian money is being invested in a company that is complicit in one degree or another.

Although it operates at arm's length from the government, directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board are appointed by the government on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance. Ultimately the government is responsible for CPP premiums investments. The government failed to include ethical guidelines for investing when it established the board in 1997.

What has our government done to address the horrors in Sudan and the problem of Canadian involvement there in exacerbating the problems in that country? Nothing of significance. We all know this has dragged on many years. Others have suggested the SEMA should be brought to bear in this situation.

Some have talked about IGAD. Although it is an honest attempt by people who are trying to broker peace, it is not working. In fact there are individuals who try in the midst of this to use what I would call the moral equivalence argument in respect to the situation in Sudan. They say that because the SPLA, which is involved, has done some bad things. Therefore, because it is bad on this side and bad on that side, we cannot blame the Sudanese government.

As a father, if two of my kids were involved in a scrap and one came over with a baseball bat to do some damage on the other because the other had pushed him or something like that, there would be no moral equivalence. I would not say that because one pushed the other that justified knocking the other over the head with a bat.

Moral equivalence is a fallacious kind of argument that is often used by the government; because the SPLA does something wrong, it justifies the Sudanese government doing something wrong. Both have done something wrong, but the blame is far more on the Sudanese government in this situation.

The Liberal government has taken a somewhat disappointing, almost a who cares approach, to the tragedy in Sudan and to the Canadian complicity in that tragedy.

The U.S. Congress has come up with two different versions of the Sudan peace act, but it takes the human rights abuses in Sudan seriously. This has gone on far too long. Three weeks ago President Bush appointed senator John Danforth as a special envoy to Sudan to try to work for peace.

What is Canada doing? The Minister for Foreign Affairs, when pressed on his response to attacks on Talisman's oil concessions, said that the Sudanese were making efforts to secure the oil fields so that Canadians working for Talisman would be safe. I want all people there to be safe. Lives have been taken in this horrific, evil situation that has gone on far too long.

My colleague, the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore of the Liberal Party, has worked on this issue for eight long years, and I commend her for that. Others in the House have as well, for longer than I have been here. That just points out the fact that something of significance needs to be done. I commend all those others in the fight. We will stay at it.

I ask one last time and appeal to the members across the way to allow this bill to go forward by giving their unanimous consent for it to be votable, so we can take it on to committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to make this item votable?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I asked a question of the Minister of Transport regarding Air Canada and its request for bailout money. On that day I made the point that many sectors of the economy have suffered as a result of the September 11 tragedy in New York City which obviously has had an impact on the entire free world. Not only are airlines hurting, every sector of our economy is hurting.

We now know that Air Canada is asking for $4 billion in compensation. As a reminder, $4 billion is exactly 4,000 $1 million bills. It is a lot of money. The government has to consider a number of things before it even remotely entertains this proposal.

First, it is important to note that Air Canada has been losing money steadily since the merger. It had nothing to do with the September 11 tragedy. Obviously there are real costs associated with that tragedy and we understand that but every transport business in the country suffered as a result of the September 11 tragedy. Every manufacturing business in the country suffered as a result of the September 11 tragedy. It is only Air Canada that the government is listening to at this time.

I will make a couple of suggestions. I am sure my colleagues next to me will support them. Before any consideration is given to Air Canada's request for money, the government should demand an external audit of Air Canada in terms of its management practices and a financial audit. Aside from that, Air Canada has a lot of explaining to do in terms of how it manages itself.

Air Canada has a 14 member board. Each of those board members receives $37,000 a year to sit on that board. Mr. Speaker, if you think your job is a good one, listen to this. The board members get $1,000 a meeting. Last year there were 42 board meetings. In addition to the $37,000, they got $42,000 as a result of the 42 board meetings. It is $1,000 a pop. In addition to that they get free travel and expenses.

When the cuts come at Air Canada, and they are coming because some were announced today, let us look at the management of Air Canada. How many people at the top are going to be cut?

It is time Air Canada looked inward to find out why it was not making money prior to September 11. Air Canada owes the Canadian public an explanation.

We do know there are direct costs resulting from the September 11 tragedy, but let an external audit be conducted. Allow us to do that so the Canadian taxpayer will know exactly what happened within the walls of Air Canada prior to September 11.

On that I rest my case. I hope the government does the right thing and demands an external audit before it gives the request the slightest consideration.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for New Brunswick Southwest for sharing his parliamentary experience with this House. I think he deserves our full congratulations.

He was right to point out that, before acting too quickly in financial terms, we must exercise caution.

Reference to lost jobs is a generality. Jobs have been lost in a number of industrial sectors. I think that in the airline industry, the analysis must be very detailed.

In response to what my colleague said a few days ago, the federal Minister of Transport, who has always been wise and circumspect in his interventions since the beginning of this crisis, was quite right in saying that we should not put the cart before the horse.

We must take time to carefully assess the scope of the upset and the damage, and we must make no mistake, it is considerable, before we examine the facts and decide what it would be appropriate to do. This is just one part of the transportation industry.

Indeed, I think that the Minister of Transport has shown the way. We must exercise caution, because, at the moment, all sectors are affected by the crisis.

The terrorist attack changed all the parameters in our civilization. Our economy, our society and our whole network require us to think more deeply about what corrective measures should be taken, about more comprehensive safety measures.

The minister should be commended, as the hon. member pointed out, for showing patience, for looking at the issue from a proper perspective and for not jumping into financial commitments which, I believe, would not necessarily be justified.

I thank the hon. member for expressing his view. He can be assured that his comments will be taken into consideration in the global reflection that we must make, not only with regard to the transportation industry, but all the industrial and tourism sectors, and also the whole economy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)