Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2006

Situation in Sudan

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

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

As the debate unfolds tonight, a half a world away, in the sands of the Sahara Desert, a nightmare continues to unfold. As we speak, pregnant women and little girls as young as eight will be carved up in front of their families. Four hundred thousand people have been murdered. Three million people have been displaced. This is the genocide that is Darfur.

The time for talk is over. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should understand this. The time for half measures is over.

The choice we have in front of us simple. Do we take a UN force into Darfur and save lives and stop a genocide, or do we continue to engage in talks which will lead to more talk, which will lead to inaction, which will lead to more deaths? That is the stark reality. Jan Egeland, who the minister spoke about, has warned the minister that in the coming months we will see 100,000 civilians die month in and month out, 100,000 preventable deaths every month.

What the minister fails to understand is that the government in Khartoum is the longest serving genocidal regime in the world. It continues to engage and play the international community for fools. It continues to take a course of so-called diplomacy. There are false peace negotiations. Why? Because it wants to allow the genocide to continue. It demonstrated this in the Nuba mountains. It demonstrated this in the conflict in southern Sudan that resulted in the genocide of Dinka and Nuer tribesmen, which I have seen. I have seen their Hind helicopter gunships. I have seen the atrocities that were committed, the people who were mutilated, the families who saw their loved ones die.

This is not a joke. This is a genocide. If we do not act, we will have Rwanda II on our doorstep.

The choice is very simple, and it is stark. We have a responsibility to protect. Do we have an obligation to act? This weighs heavily on the minister's shoulders, I know. I know it is difficult for him to do this because it has never been done before.

Yes, we acted quickly in Kosovo. Yes, we acted relatively quickly in Lebanon. However, we have continued to fail to act in the face of genocides that have occurred in places in Africa.

The situation on the ground is stark. The African Union troops have been unable to protect innocent civilians because they are undermanned, under equipped and do not have the mandate to act.

UN Security resolution 1706 clearly states that the UN can authorize a chapter VII force to go into Sudan tomorrow. We want our country to live up to the responsibility to act and make it an obligation to get troops on the ground now. We can take that leadership role now. We are asking for that. The minister said that he had the connections with his compatriots around the world. Call them together, make an obligation in personnel, in equipment, in troops and in the mandate that the UN has given the international community. If we fail to do that, lives will continue to be lost.

We are asking for the following.

First, we ask that we push like-minded countries to contribute to a UN force.

Second, we ask that we strengthen the African Union forces in numbers, in equipment and in mandate. When we were government, we were the third largest contributor to the force. However, we know that the force cannot protect innocent civilians.

Third, we ask that we support relief agencies, like the World Food Program, Médicins Sans Frontières and the International Committee for the Red Cross, which were doing a yeoman's job when other aid agencies left, and that we protect relief workers. We have had more relief workers killed in the last three months than we have seen killed in the last three years.

Fourth, we ask that we prosecute in the International Criminal Court those members who have been identified by the United Nations as being individuals of interest to the ICC. We were the country that was the champion of the ICC. We can do that with other countries.

We also need to engage in sanctions against Khartoum if it fails to act.

I encourage the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he not be waylaid by the continued false promises by the government in Khartoum, that he act with resolution and that he follow up and live up to the promises made and the agreements made by UN Resolution 1706.

I thank General Roméo Dallaire for his work and the member for Mount Royal, who did an enormous amount of work on this. He could not be here tonight.

We acted with relative speed in protecting the lives of those who were in danger in Kosovo. We did the same in Lebanon. Are we willing to do the same in Darfur? Is the life of an African the same as the life of a European? Are we willing to backup the responsibility to protect with an obligation to act?

I think the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs will find that Canadians from coast to coast are imploring him to use his position to act, to backup by action the words of the Prime Minister in saying that we want to do something.

The gauntlet is down, the responsibility is on his shoulders. We want him to act and act now.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the words of the member opposite. I acknowledge his extensive knowledge of and passion for this issue and that of others he has mentioned, including the Hon. David Kilgour who is with us tonight.

As forcefully as he has made the case, which is the right case, they are words nonetheless. This is not a partisan issue. We can cast aspersions about who has acted and who has acted quickly. I do not need to remind him that he was a member of a government that was in office for 13 years.

This government, in a relatively short time, has taken a great deal of responsibility on its shoulders, has acted to engage very actively with the international community and will continue to do so.

The government has also kept up with important contributions, financial, equipment and otherwise. It has engaged very actively with principal players, like Jan Egeland and Mr. Kellenberger, the president of the International Red Cross. All of these actors and principal players have a collective responsibility. This will not be solved by any one country or any one individual or organization. It will take a mammoth human effort to bring about an end to the suffering.

We can all learn from the lessons and the language of the past. Whether it is called genocide or a massive slaughter of humanity, those are semantics when it comes to getting the job done and ending these atrocities.

Again, the proactive and productive approach is the one to bring about the collective responsibility and collective pressures brought to bear to end this atrocity inside Sudan.

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

Mr. Chair, I would also echo the comments of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the hard work that the Hon. David Kilgour has done for years, not only in Darfur, but also in southern Sudan.

The point I am trying to drive across to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is that this is not about words. This is about leadership and action. If the foreign minister continues to play the stance for the government in Khartoum, which so many others have played, then this will only lead to the continuation of this genocide. It is as simple as that.

We have a choice: act now, get the UN force, under UN resolution 1706, into Darfur now, or accept the fact that we will have a Rwanda II on our hands. That is the choice. It is simple.

Will the minister authorize our troops to go in there with others? This is not a choice; it is an obligation for us to act and put those troops on the ground now.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a simple question for my colleague opposite. Is he advocating that we would mount an opposed invasion of Sudan unilaterally, or even with the United Nations, to make this happen?

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

Mr. Chair, the UN security resolution 1706 obligates and demands that we form a multinational force to go into Darfur whether Khartoum agrees to it or not.

Yes, we should get troops into Darfur. If the member wants to call it an invasion, then it is an invasion.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciated the member's comments. His passion and hard work on this file are well-known.

It seems, from everything we hear on the ground, that since signing the peace agreement there has not been one life that has been saved. There are violent attacks on civilians, especially by government supported militia. The government refuses to provide an atmosphere that would lead to security.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said that we have not been asked and yet the situation worsens and, as I understand it, that is not the case. I think there is nothing better that we could do right now than show leadership and act.

I am wondering, aside from the kind of force to which he was referring, if he thinks there is a possibility of engaging a parallel peace process in some fashion that would lead to Darfur discussions in a secure way.

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

Mr. Chair, the peace agreement is in a coma. In northern Darfur, 350,000 people are without food. A parallel peace process would not work.

The government in Khartoum, a government with behaviour from the Nuba Mountains to the conflict in the south against the Nuer and Dinka tribes, and now in Darfur, has demonstrated that it is the longest serving genocidal regime in the world. It has no interest whatsoever in engaging in peace talks that will be fruitful. It would rather use peace talks as a way of continuing to allow the Janjaweed, which it supports, to murder innocent civilians and continue to use its bombers to strafe, destroy and murder civilians.

There are no other peace talks. The time for talk is over. The time for negotiations is over. The time for action is now.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate tonight and to address this most urgent and vital of international issues. In fact, I consider it not only an honour to participate in this debate but a duty.

A country's foreign policy should be one with the values of its people, both to be legitimate and to be successful. At the same time, this foreign policy should necessarily find resonance with the country's history, namely, with its previous foreign policy actions.

I believe Canadians have a heightened sense of the vulnerability of minorities, whether they be cultural, linguistic, religious and so on. It is commonplace to say that Canada is a nation of minorities but it is true, and this sensibility has impacted on our world view. Canada is not just a nation of immigrants. It is a nation of minorities and that nuance is important to our understanding of ourselves and of our foreign policy objectives and actions.

We, as elected representatives, are in a unique position to understand the values and wishes of our fellow Canadians. We meet and speak with them every day in the hearts of our communities, in arenas, shopping centres and coffee shops. We, as members of Parliament, receive correspondence, including emails, increasingly from our constituents and our fellow Canadians. We receive phone calls, sometimes passionate phone calls, from our constituents.

Over the past few months, I have received much correspondence from my fellow citizens and constituents deeply concerned with the situation in Darfur. I even had a young constituent visit me at my office while he was in Ottawa with the Encounters with Canada program. He was a young man of about 17 years of age, incredibly knowledgeable about the world and passionate about making the world a better place. He pleaded with me to ask the Government of Canada to do something. He said that we must send Canadian troops to Darfur.

While I receive correspondence from constituents, like all members do, both in favour and sometimes against specific government policies and actions, when it comes to Darfur, the correspondence has been unanimous. I have not received one piece of correspondence or one phone call from a constituent saying that Canada must pull back and be neutral on the issue of Darfur.

My constituents want us to act now. No one has to take my word for it. There is broad based support in Canada for our country to be at the forefront of an international effort to prevent further catastrophe in Darfur. Fifty organizations representing Canadians of all religions, ages, political views and education supported the Global Day for Darfur this past September 17.

Moreover, Canadian NGOs have formed Save Darfur Canada to represent the voices of thousands of concerned Canadians. Canadians want Canada to take bold action and bold leadership that is consistent with our Canadian values and our previous international actions.

The previous Liberal government crafted and promoted the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, a ground-breaking notion adopted more than a year ago at the United Nations General Assembly. Canada was the architect of this doctrine, which is based on the idea that while the primary responsibility for the protection of a population lies with the sovereign state that governs it, in the event that this state is unable or unwilling to do so or is itself the cause of the threat, the responsibility to protect shifts to the international community of states, in other words, the United Nations.

The Sudanese government has clearly demonstrated that it is unable to stop the violence in Darfur. In fact, it is itself a perpetrator of this violence. Canada must take the lead as a credible middle power in mobilizing the international community to support action in Darfur.

We have the benefit of having with us a colleague who has particular wisdom on this issue, wisdom that he so painfully acquired. Senator Roméo Dallaire, whom I happen to sit with as a member of the Quebec Liberal caucus, is resolutely in favour of Canada taking a leadership role in advancing the cause of international action to protect the people of Darfur. We should heed his advice. We must not waste his wisdom.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I was born and raised in Africa. I was extremely amazed when I heard a member of Parliament today say that he wants to invade a country in Africa. It find that unbelievable.

I just want to read what Senator Dallaire said:

Anybody who says that the era of the white man going into Africa to sort out their problems is what should still remain is someone who's totally disconnected from the reality of Africa.

Is the member going to invade Africa by himself or is he going to ask Canadians to go there? How does he think the world will react? How does he think Africans will react to being invaded? The whole region will be blown up in flames. This will not stop the genocide and everything else that is definitely taking place. It will become another Iraq. Is that what you want?

Do you think the Africans will sit by and agree to being invaded? Do you think the African Union will agree to be invaded? It has sent troops over there to bring peace.

How do members of that think they can invade Africa?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I did not want to stop the member in mid-flight, but he did several times engage in debate without going through the Chair. I would encourage hon. members to do that.

The hon. member for Lac Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the expertise and knowledge of Africa that the hon. member brings to this debate. I myself am not a military expert but what I do know is that for action to be effective in the international community, especially action that involves the use of soldiers and, to a limited extent, the use of force, that action must always be sanctioned by the United Nations.

[An hon. member]

Resolution 1706.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Resolution 1706 is a step in the direction of implementing and applying the responsibility to protect. If we do not act with limited force to protect vulnerable populations, what is the responsibility to protect doctrine other than a collection of meaningless words?

The hon. member used the word “invade”. It is an inflammatory word. It usually means, in my perception, an aggressive country going into another country with the purpose of conquering, plundering and taking that which does not belong to it. This is not the spirit of Resolution 1706. The spirit of Resolution 1706 is to protect human life, and we must not dismiss it out of hand.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to make a few comments on something the hon. member stated a minute ago. The doctrine of responsibility to protect is a lofty term, and we would all agree with that. It is in all our interests to fight evil and to stop those who would propagate that.

However, what assurance do we have that, should we engage in such an endeavour, we will not have the same response that we witnessed on May 17 when our troops were in Afghanistan and members opposite voted against that? How do we know, when we see our boys start coming home in body bags, that we will not see that same response?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, we know nothing for sure. This is not precise science. What I do know is when I ask my constituents about Afghanistan, three-quarters of them tell me that we should not stay there indefinitely. When it comes to Darfur, the response is 100% that we should protect vulnerable people in that part of the world.

I understand there is some information that I do not have as a member of Parliament, that only the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence would have. When it came to the debate on Afghanistan, the defence committee asked for a full briefing on the situation before the vote, and if I recall correctly, the government refused. I believe that the government should be briefing the defence committee and parliamentarians, in camera if it has to, but we should have more information so that we can make educated, judicious decisions that affect lives.

There is nothing wrong with expressing a motive, with expressing noble intent as we are doing in this case when we ask that the government take steps to mobilize the international community.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, when the House of Commons debated the Darfur issue on May 1, the situation in this western province of Sudan was already very serious. We were waiting for a peace agreement to be signed by the two rebel movements and the government of Khartoum.

Today, we are facing an even more serious situation, one which remains as violent as it is complex, and where atrocities continue to be carried out against civilians in violation of the peace agreement signed on May 5. Since last May, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur has continued to worsen and the people are suffering more than ever. Access to populations in need by humanitarian organizations is increasingly difficult. Just recently, those in charge of the world food program deplored the fact that more than 355,000 people in Darfur continue, after three months, to be deprived of food aid because of fighting and rebel attacks.

The UN humanitarian coordinator for the Sudan believes that this is the worse the situation has been since the beginning of the conflict in 2003. The situation has also deteriorated in Chad. Human Rights Watch has accused Chad and Sudan of “supporting armed groups responsible for serious crimes” in eastern Chad, where violence has caused hundreds of deaths and 50,000 were displaced in the first six months.

Besides worsening the humanitarian situation, the partial peace agreement on Darfur signed on May 5 by only one part of the rebel groups, “…is nearly dead. It is in a coma…”, said Jan Pronk, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Sudan. This peace agreement “…ought to be under intensive care, but it isn’t”.

At the last debate on Darfur, the international community was faced with the same challenge: this is the first time that the international committee must try to enforce the responsibility to protect. The responsibility to protect, let us recall, recognizes the need to take resolute action in order to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Since the last debate on Darfur, a historical step was taken when, on May 28, 2006, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on the responsibility to protect, which supported the resolution adopted by the General Assembly in October 2005.

One of the essential keys to enforcing this responsibility to protect is to rely on the forces present and to ensure that the parties involved make peace themselves. A peaceful and negotiated solution is always preferable. “When peace comes from external violence, even if that is sometimes unavoidable”, as my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, said during the last debate, “it brings its share of serious consequences which make the future extremely difficult”.

Several experts and not-for-profit agencies, including the International Crisis Group, to name but just one, have pointed to the international community’s lack of will as being one of the main causes of the failure, not only of the implementation of the May 5 peace agreement, but also of the acceptance by the Sudanese government of a United Nations force that would take over from the African Union force to protect the people of Darfur.

Given the urgency of the situation, the international community must demonstrate greater determination and must continue to do all in its power to convince all the players directly or indirectly involved in this conflict of the merits of sending a UN force.

Just recently, all the rebel groups in Darfur—including the former rebel faction of Minni Minawi, currently in the government—expressed their support for sending UN peace soldiers. The Sudan People's Liberation Movement, a partner in the Sudanese government that represents southern Sudan, also voted in favour of the presence of a United Nations force in Darfur, as did most of the Sudanese political parties.

That is encouraging. The international community needs to keep up the pressure and to press on, without letting up and without losing its sense of urgency, and must rally all the other actors—including, obviously, President Omar al-Bashir at the top of the list—around an effective solution to the crisis in Darfur. The international community must give him assurances and persuade him that a UN force will not open the door to re-colonization of Sudan. That was not and is not the case with the UN mission—UNMIS—that is already present in southern Sudan. There is no reason why a UN mission to Darfur would be different. The only objective here is to protect populations that are in grave danger. That objective will be achieved while fully respecting the sovereignty of the Sudanese nation.

Many people agree that China and Russia are also two important players in this conflict. Indeed, President al-Bashir prides himself on maintaining excellent relations with both of those countries. And both of those countries abstained from voting for resolution 1706 authorizing the deployment of UNMIS in the Darfur region under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

The international community, including Canada, should put more pressure on China and Russia to have those two countries step up and support replacing the African Union mission with a United Nations mission in Darfur. They must urge China and Russia to step up and put pressure on the Sudanese government to accept that substitution.

The international community and Canada must also approach the Arab League and the other countries in the region affected by the conflict, so that they too will step up and approach the Sudanese government to persuade it of the wisdom of a UN mission in Darfur.

It is also important that the international community continue to press on to persuade the rebel parties who did not sign the peace agreement of May 5 to join it, as Jan Pronk suggests. The holdout rebel parties must be persuaded of the merits of an agreement like this, and it will have to be improved, if need be, and again as Pronk proposed, in order to get the groups that feel left out of the agreement to support it. The welfare of an entire population depends on this.

At the end of May there were already thirty commanders and political representatives from the dissident branches in the minority faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement who had signed a statement committing themselves to supporting the May 5 agreement.

We can see that the conditions that are needed for the situation in Darfur to continue to deteriorate are all present. On the other hand, measures that can foster a resolution of the conflict are also within reach.

The fate of thousands of people and of an entire population that has had its share of misfortune, the future of thousands of children and the future of Darfur itself, demand that Canada and the international community continue to act with sensitivity and tact to persuade the parties involved in the conflict to come to an agreement.

The extreme gravity of the situation demands this increased effort on the part of Canada and the international community. We must come to the aid of the people of Darfur. We must not let them die before our eyes. A little of our own humanity would die with them.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Chair, the tragedy in Darfur, eclipsed by tsunamis, earthquakes, Iraq and Afghanistan, often disappears from the public eye, but the suffering continues, indeed it worsens with every passing day.

The African Union has said that the United Nations should come in, and it must. The African Union has expressed the will of Africa.

The question Canada must now face is this: what are we doing to ensure that the United Nations acts quickly?

We took a leadership role in providing the African Union with money, logistical support and expertise, with military equipment, helicopters, armoured vehicles and training. We did the same thing in paving the way to the peace agreement in the south.

The United Nations will require an even greater contribution from Canada, a far greater one. The question this House must answer is what the nature of Canada's contribution will be. What will we say to the United Nations, and what will we say to all those Africans who spoke through the African Union?

Quite simply, the responsibility to protect was a Canadian initiative. It was spawned by the terrible events in Rwanda, when a Canadian general said, “Never again”. It was spawned by Darfur. We must do all in our power to make it a reality.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, of course, I agree entirely. We must certainly intervene under the United Nations and Canada must bear a great responsibility in this matter. In fact, it was a Canadian initiative to raise the question of responsibility to protect. This responsibility to protect must not remain hidden behind inaction. Accordingly, we must find some way to convince the parties involved to agree to a United Nations presence.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is very frustrating to rise here tonight and continue this speechifying, because everyone here agrees that this is an extremely serious situation and it is time to act. Nevertheless, we are here tonight for a debate and to talk about this issue, even though this debate will not allow us to make any decisions.

I have a question for the hon. member. A little earlier, we heard the minister say in this House that no one asked us to intervene. And he seemed to congratulate himself for the action taken by Canada. Yes, we took some action, but I wonder if congratulations are really in order for what we did, if it really was enough and if we should have stopped.

I wonder if the member has any comments on this approach, this attitude?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her question. Obviously we are now talking about an extremely serious situation. As I said the last time we discussed this issue, I truly had the impression that we were chatting about it while we waited to go for dinner, the answers were that evasive.

When there are issues of this nature, the government party often tells us that it has put so much money into it. It is not money that is needed. Certainly money is necessary, but right now it is political will that is needed, so that that we can understand that we cannot allow human beings to live in this kind of situation year after year and do nothing. We have a duty to act, and what it demands that we do is precisely that we go there, even if the governments have not asked us to.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Chair, I feel compelled to rise in response to the question from the NDP.

It is clear that Canada is very much intervening in this matter and continues to do so. With $320 million, the previous government began this process. We will continue it surely, in every way, shape and form, including support for the International Criminal Court efforts to prosecute this matter and those involved. We will continue to support the NGOs. We will continue to support all efforts aimed at bringing an end to the atrocities inside Darfur.

However, to the hon. member opposite with respect to the suggestion and the allusion made by many members tonight that Canada should somehow lead an effort to unilaterally enter Darfur, this is simply folly. Within resolution 1706, which the Government of Canada supported strongly, the consent of the government of Sudan is an essential element for the deployment and ultimately the success of the expanded United Nations mission in Sudan.

A concentrated effort must be brought to bear by member countries of the G-8, other representatives at the United Nations, and the hon. member herself has alluded to China and Russia in particular, and the ongoing efforts that Canada is making, including efforts by our diplomats working at the United Nations. John McNee, our special representative in Nigeria, David Angel, previous ambassadors, myself, previous ministers, and members of the House must continue to apply that pressure. An African Union transition into a United Nations mission must occur with the consent of the people and the government of Sudan. Clearly, there is a fear, irrational or otherwise, expressed by President Bashir, that this will result in colonization.

Increased efforts and pressure must be brought to bear to bring about a clear understanding that this has nothing to do, in any way shape or form, with colonization or an attempt to take over the government. This is clearly about an end to the slaughter and the killing of innocents inside Sudan.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, the responsibility to protect of course refers to consent by the government. In cases where the government will never agree, however—and that is what seems to be happening, because now and then it says yes; it blows hot and cold—I believe that there is a part of the duty to protect that says that if the government of a country cannot do what is needed to bring peace to the country, foreign countries still have a duty to protect.

On that point, I would like to say that in any event, the action I have proposed is within the framework of the United Nations. And Canada’s work should remain inside that structure so that we can do something to change the situation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Chair, tonight I heard from the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and other members in the House with regard to what we should do in Darfur in Africa. I know there is a senator who has been so eloquent in his plea for this country to do more.

However, I ask members of the House, are we not in another area of the world where we have been asked to go? Are we not there because of terrible genocide and terrible atrocities done to women and children? Are we not there because the United Nations and the world community asked us to be there?

I speak almost every other week to members of the Canadian armed forces who are signing up for their second and third term in Afghanistan. They believe in what they are doing. Do we need to open up another front and then another front where our limited resources are spread throughout the world?

I ask the members who have just spoken, and in particular the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, are we not asking this country to do more than its resources can already permit it to do?

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would say to the hon. member that he cannot ask a question of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard because the right hon. member was rising in response to an intervention made by the hon. member for Papineau. The hon. member for Papineau.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, that is precisely the question. When we talked about extending the mission in Afghanistan, our questions to the government were about what condition the troops were in and about knowing what we could do. We still know nothing about that, we never got the answer, except that the longer it goes on, the more people we find to send to Afghanistan.

The Darfur situation predates the Afghanistan situation. So it is absolutely inconceivable that we would seem to be suggesting that Canada does not now have the resources to send troops.

In any event, within the United Nations force, Canada can bring pressure to bear and it must do its share. Continuing to do our share does not mean saying yes one day and no the next day.

There are situations in the world that require our assistance. If we, as members of Parliament, knew exactly what resources the government had at this point, perhaps we would be able to suggest something more specific. At present, as I understand it, the situation is absolutely catastrophic in Darfur and the answers we are getting for trying to alleviate the situation are not credible.