Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2006

Situation in Sudan

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the crisis in Darfur which has aptly been described by some as genocide in slow motion. It is hard to imagine, with the global spotlight on Darfur, that the crisis could actually worsen but worsen it has.

In the past two months alone over 50,000 individuals have been displaced. Thousands of women and girls have been brutalized and raped. These are horrors on top of the 450,000 individuals already killed in this horrific conflict. There are more than 2 million internally displaced and 250,000 forced to flee to neighbouring Chad.

Baba Gana Kingibe, commander of the African Union peacekeeping mission, has described security in Darfur as plummeting.

While we need to be careful not to over simplify, the solution to this crisis is surely not rocket science. We know that the African Union has agreed to extend its mission in Sudan and increase its troops, but it desperately lacks the adequate funding from donor countries to be able to follow through.

We know that the AU has 1,300 troops ready to deploy to join the 7,000 already present in Darfur, but it cannot do so because of inadequate funds.

How can we as rich nations debate over and over again this crisis, the rapes, the killings, the displacements, and say that we care and care deeply, but yet we cannot come up with the funds to ensure that additional AU forces are sent immediately into the region? How can we express outrage and concern, but then not find the political will to act?

Yes, it is true Canada has helped and that point has been made by government members, but it is such a critical time. We simply cannot cite our contributions and say we have done our part. We surely must do more.

We must lead by example. We must inspire and if necessary shame other nations into doing more because resolutions upon resolutions do not protect vulnerable citizens but peacekeepers can protect them.

Canada is now among the top international donors to the AU, but in this grave situation an even more urgent and significant response is required. Canada, with its $13 billion surplus, surely can afford to do more.

I regret I did not hear from the foreign affairs minister at least today in this debate stating that this country stands ready with the military and the fiscal capacity to move if the situation requires it.

Committing now to participate in a UN force will send a strong signal to President Bashir of Sudan that the world is serious, that Canada is serious about ending the slaughter and protecting the vulnerable in Darfur.

Canada needs to encourage the AU to utilize fully the assistance available to it, assistance with communications, command and control, capacity building, and creating a more professional force. These are fields in which Canada can offer its expertise and can offer more.

Canada must engage directly with the government of Sudan to try to convince Khartoum to accept the deployment of UN forces at the conclusion of the AU's mission in December and to negotiate in good faith with those groups who have yet to sign the peace accord.

I have not heard that this evening from the foreign affairs minister or other members. I have heard them hiding behind the arguments for why we should not be ready to act.

We have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan that peace is rarely achieved at the end of a gun barrel or as a result of military intervention. We need to try, in every possible way through dialogue and genuine commitment, to advance a comprehensive peace process, but rarely is a comprehensive peace process successful unless there is military support to maintain that process.

My Conservative colleagues will not listen to New Democrats on the value of a comprehensive peace process. We have never yet heard them do so. Maybe they will listen to U.S. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, who said yesterday about Afghanistan that war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia into negotiations.

I am sure it was in that spirit and with that realization that a local Ottawa Sudanese Canadian, a constituent here in our capital city, offered the following advice to parliamentarians today when invited to do so. He said that Canada must use every possible means to persuade the warring parties to honour the peace agreements that they have signed. Honouring these agreements would avert further war and the human tragedies and sufferings that come with it. Canada should also exert pressure in every way possible on the warring parties so that the military confrontation can be brought to a halt. This would give way for humanitarian assistance to reach the Darfur civilians. Where possible, it should also financially support humanitarian agencies more generously than we have done to date so that they can deliver the required services in abundance to people who so desperately need them.

We need to indicate strongly that we are deadly serious about following through with peacekeeping forces. If we cannot persuade the Sudanese government to act in a manner that can bring this horror to an end, then we can engage more aggressively, more deliberately and more effectively in bringing the warring parties into the peace agreement that has not happened to date.

What we have heard so far from government members is just a good deal of waffling on making any further robust commitments to try to make our contributions put an end to this genocide in slow motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I have listened with great interest to the member for Halifax. On this and numerous occasions, she has used high-sounding language like peace is not achieved at the end of a gun barrel. She and her fearless leader believe that we should talk to the Taliban, that we should be engaged in further peace activities.

Peacemaking is what has to happen, because the fighting that is going on and the genocide, as she calls it, that is happening in Africa is not going to simply end by negotiations, clearly.

If she is saying that we need a robust, which means an active, military force that is prepared to engage in military activity, which is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan, in order for development to occur, in order for schools to be built so that children can attend, in order for women to be prevented from being raped and abused and in order for them to be permitted to participate in democratic activity and participate in normal life, there have to be people prepared to go in and fight for those values. That is exactly what is happening in Afghanistan.

I have a very direct question. I am addressing the hon. member for Halifax who released a press release just a few short days ago on the mission in Afghanistan in which she said:

Our Canadian Forces deserve to be sent only on missions consistent with Canadian values, where the objectives are clear and where victory is attainable.

Canadians are in Afghanistan after having been invited by the Afghan government, in a UN backed mission with 37 other counties from NATO, yet Sudanese President al-Bashir has categorically refused to allow the transfer from the African Union to the United Nations operation. We are not wanted there. How does she square that circle from high on mount hypocrisy given her statements in the House today?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is really regrettable that so quickly we end up in this kind of jeering, insulting and throwing around of those kinds of accusations.

Ironically, I know the Conservatives have the largest number of members in the House, but I am not sure that I saw one of them at an excellent debate this afternoon on the issue of peacekeeping and peacemaking. It was sponsored by a young people's organization, Canada 2020.

There was a superb panel that took place with a variety of points of view on the issue of peackeeping and peacemaking, and in particular a variety of points of view about Afghanistan. One of the things that was lamented was how much of a deterioration there was into a kind of us and them view of the world aping the Bush view of the world instead of dealing with the complexities and intricacies of these kinds of situations.

I do not intend to deteriorate into that again in this debate tonight. I think the government has chosen to use the excuse that it is problematic, and for sure it is problematic in the extreme that President al-Bashir is not receptive in the least at this point to UN peacekeeping troops going in. However, the Conservative government chooses to hide behind that instead of engaging in robust diplomacy, engaging with the entire global community to try to bring appropriate pressure to bear to get him to change his position in that regard and in the meantime engage in more good faith peace negotiations to bring other parties in on the negotiations so that there is not the need for military intervention. It is not over until it is over. Diplomacy is always--

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The hon. member's intervention is over. The right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a brief comment in response to a question that was asked by the member for Northumberland—Quinte West. He asked if given our other responsibilities we should be in Darfur.

Let me simply say that the answer is unequivocally, yes. Not only that, but we have the capacity to do so and we have the capacity to do so in a multitude of ways. As the hon. member from the NDP has just said, we have a long and historic relationship with both Africa and the African Union. The people of Africa have asked us to live up to our responsibilities as a member of the international community. They have asked the international community to do so. It is our responsibility to meet that challenge and that request.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the words of the member for LaSalle—Émard. As already mentioned earlier by the member for Trinity—Spadina, it was absolutely confirmed in an access to information response a while ago that the military capacity is there to contribute to a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur should that become necessary.

As I said in my earlier comments, there is nothing that should prevent Canada from strongly signalling to President al-Bashir that we will not hesitate to use those available troops, that capacity, to back up a UN mission, but use every bit of diplomatic effort available to make that unnecessary because we need to get President al-Bashir to respond to the global pressure and the growing horrors about the genocide in slow motion that is happening in Darfur.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for my colleague, but first I just want to point out something that the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said on November 14, 2004. He said it makes sense for locals to do their own peacekeeping as opposed to parachuting in Canadian troops who do not understand the culture. He also said that Canada is already playing a very heavy role in Afghanistan but would consider sending equipment and military trainers to Sudan.

I believe we have done that. I believe in fact that the foreign affairs minister did talk about the robust negotiations that he is undertaking with people like President al-Bashir. That is happening.

I have a question for the hon. member. Of course, given her strong support for military defence spending over the past number of years to build up the capacity of the Canadian Forces to carry out such missions, and we really appreciate that, but does she honestly believe that blue berets on the border of Sudan are going to cause the genocide in Sudan to stop? Does she honestly believe that stopping the genocide would happen without a force there that is prepared to take decisive, strong military action that includes, unfortunately, probably having to kill people?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I wish the member had been at the debate this afternoon which was precisely on this point.

The question asked was, is peacekeeping as we know it in a traditional sense still realistic and is it appropriate in the situation that we are talking about? I think, regrettably, we are all forced to come to the conclusion that the blue berets peacekeeping with light weapons in this situation is probably not going to get the job done.

As I see it, the problem with the government is that on the one hand it seems not prepared at all to understand the value and necessity of really aggressive, robust, diplomatic initiatives, and on the other hand it seems prepared to send troops into missions where there is very little evidence that what we are doing, for example, in Afghanistan is not making a desperate situation worse. The more chaos, the more killings, the more fanaticism that is fuelled, the more Taliban, and the cycle continues. It is deteriorating and we are headed for what unfortunately could well be Canada's Iraq or Vietnam.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, the crisis in Darfur is considered to have begun in the 1980s, but it was not until 2003 that the international community suffered the repercussions and began to take notice of what was happening there. Still, since 2003, countries outside Sudan have seemed reluctant to get involved in this situation, which is nonetheless catastrophic.

My question for the hon. member is this: what should be done to ensure that the international community can act as quickly as possible in a situation where it is generally recognized that a genocide appears to be unfolding?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, the two main points that I will reiterate is that I think between now and the end of December there needs to be a very big push on resources to back up the African Union and what it has been doing.

One of the tragedies is that we are not only talking about ill-equipped and insufficient troops, we are literally talking about a situation where evidence indicates that African Union troops have been hungry, malnourished, underfed and suffer from health problems that flow from that. Between now and December we have to be far more aggressive. Canada needs to be among the nations, but others pushed even harder to deliver the support to the African Union.

Second, as I have already said, we have to be ready. We have to signal clearly, and Canada needs to be foremost among them, that we will not hesitate to send in troops to be part of a UN peacekeeping mission and use every possible means to bring pressure to bear on al-Bashir for that not to be necessary so that he can become more involved in a genuine effort to bring about peace, to put an end to the killings, to bring those--

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Resuming debate with the hon. Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, I am glad to be taking part in this new debate on Canada's role in Sudan. We must re-examine this issue.

The humanitarian situation in Sudan is alarming, and that is why Canada is working with its Canadian and international partners to bring aid to the people of Sudan and alleviate the human suffering.

Since April 2005, Canada has pledged $110 million in official development assistance for Sudan. This money is being used for humanitarian aid, reconstruction and mine clearing, as well as for promoting governance and gender equality. CIDA has already spent more than 90% of this amount, which was to be spread over two years.

Canadians and the Government of Canada are very concerned about the attacks on Sudanese nationals in displaced persons camps and on humanitarian workers in Darfur. The lack of safety in Darfur is making it difficult to reach people who urgently need food aid. Despite the difficulties, CIDA has invested $20 million in humanitarian aid in Sudan since the debate in May. This aid is being used to provide food, water, medical care and shelter.

Of this amount, $10 million has already been distributed: $6.8 million was given to support the activities of UN agencies, such as UNICEF, the world food program and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees; $1.2 million was delivered to the International Red Cross Committee; and $2 million went to Canadian non-governmental organizations, such as Doctors without Borders, World Vision, Save the Children Canada and the Canadian Red Cross, to name but a few.

In the speech he delivered in Bucharest, at the summit of la Francophonie, the Prime Minister of Canada recalled the importance of acting to reduce tensions and conflicts in the world. He reiterated the recommendations made in St. Boniface by the ministers of la Francophonie. I had the privilege of chairing this ministerial conference last May. We discussed the prevention of conflicts, food security, and particularly the fate reserved for civilian populations and their access to humanitarian aid. The recent Bucharest statement clearly shows that the international francophone community is stepping up joint efforts and actions on behalf of the people of Darfur. This is reflected within both regional and multilateral organizations.

As you know, there are two peace missions in Sudan. One is taking place in southern Sudan, under the control of the United Nations. The other is being conducted by the African Union in the Darfur region. Canada is contributing to both these initiatives. I would like to point out, moreover, that we are one of the largest providers of funds to the African Union mission in Darfur. Thanks to this mission, the African Union is ensuring the protection of civilians and keeping the humanitarian crisis from worsening.

It is clear that we have to get all parties to respect the peace agreement and facilitate the work of the African Union. Along with the national unity government and the international community, we are also helping to implement the Comprehensive North-South Peace Agreement in Sudan, signed in January 2005. This agreement ends over 20 years of civil war. After so many years of hostilities, the establishment of a climate of peace requires energetic and sustained action. Canada will continue to concentrate on Sudan as a whole. Canada will thus continue to ensure that any efforts made in Darfur do not harm the Comprehensive North-South Peace Agreement.

Canada has made significant commitments to support this peace accord. If it succeeds, this accord could set an example for neighbouring regions. It could become a powerful tool of persuasion supporting non-violent dispute resolution. However, the failure of the North-South peace accord would have serious repercussions on the safety and stability of not only Sudan, but also the entire region.

Although the situation is still critical, there have been tangible results. The world food program is managing to feed 6.1 million people. I am proud that Canada is doing its part to help these people. In 2006, Canada gave $14.5 million to support world food program activities in Sudan.

That money was used to buy nearly 12,000 tonnes of wheat and legumes. Canada fed the equivalent of 105,000 people for a whole year. However, Canada has provided more than food aid. We have also helped improve water supply and access to sanitary services for Sudanese populations in need. Canadian aid has contributed to demining and opening major road networks.

Canada has also helped rebuild clinics and schools destroyed in the civil war. We have provided shelters, seed, tools, health care and water to tens of thousands of people.

Many of the activities I just mentioned have a direct impact on the lives, health and safety of women and children, who are of particular interest to me.

Collaboration is fundamental to CIDA's work. The agency has a strong network of partners. I would like to emphasize the excellent work CIDA's partner organizations have done. Their knowledge and understanding of world issues never cease to amaze me.

The Government of Canada continues to consider the situation in Sudan a high priority. The government is closely monitoring the implementation of its programs. CIDA carries out regular field missions to ensure that our work with partners is coordinated and yields results.

We will continue to take part in efforts toward achieving peace and good governance. We will continue to work with other donors to define how best to assist the people of Sudan. We will also encourage the transition toward a United Nations-led operation.

Canada will definitely not stand idle in the face of the aggravated humanitarian situation in Darfur. Our government will continue to work with Canadian and international partners to give hope to the men, women and children of Sudan, from the north to the south and from the east to the west of their country.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for being here and for her intervention.

There are a couple of points that the minister and her government need to understand.

The government in Khartoum is a group of pathological liars and murderers. They have demonstrated, from the Nuba Mountains to the conflict in the south, that they are simply willing to engage the international community in a series of endless negotiations that deliberately go nowhere so they can continue the murderous actions they have sponsored in their country for decades. That is the history of the country.

There are two points that need to be clarified. The UN troops are required and authorized under two counts: first, this year Security Council resolution 1706 authorized the troops to go in now, this year, not two years ago; and second, the African Union troops want the UN troops in Darfur now because they know they cannot protect innocent civilians.

The problem under the minister's responsibility is that aid cannot get to the people. There are 350,000 Darfuris in the north who have been without food for two months. The UN world food program is having an incredibly difficult time. Jan Egeland has warned of the disaster. Humanitarian workers are leaving. They have left because they cannot work there.

The rosy picture that the minister is talking about is a situation in the past. It is not what is taking place now. More and more innocent civilians are being killed now. The infrastructure of Darfur has been razed to the ground.

My question for the hon. minister is very simple. She said that “we will do what is necessary” to be able to stop the killings in Darfur. Her Prime Minister said this at the Francophonie and prior to that. Will she in this House say that her government is going to organize and, with other countries, work toward getting a multinational force into Darfur now even if Khartoum disagrees with that?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, as we know, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is actively participating in the discussions and negotiations to find a solution to the current conflict in Sudan. For the time being, the African Union is there until December and we support its efforts. We will continue to do so until the United Nations can take over.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, in my opinion, it is evident that the African Union is unable to maintain order in Darfur, much less bring peace to the area.

The minister talks about the situation as though it were a fairy tale. Darfur is at war, people are dying in droves, and we can see no end to it.

The minister speaks of food aid and the funds provided by this government. It is our money being sent there. That is fine; no one is questioning Canada's aid. However, does the minister not feel that, in this situation, we should not just continue applying a band-aid solution?

Aid is not reaching those most in need and even NGOs are being forced to leave because their safety cannot be guaranteed and the people cannot be reached. Should we not consider other measures?

Consequently, does she not feel that we should focus on applying pressure to other countries so that there will be a mission led by the United Nations?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure I understood what the member for Papineau said, but Canada will always send humanitarian aid in the hope of finding a way to get it to people in need. Although the situation is critical in Darfur, Canada has made a commitment in the rest of Sudan and will maintain its commitment to the people.

With respect to international action, I repeat again that in his speech to the United Nations, our Prime Minister called on the international community to work together and help Darfur. He made the same appeal at the summit of la Francophonie in Bucharest.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, a joint report recently published by Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms and Oxfam International reviewed many industrialized countries, including Canada, that are benefiting from the trade of arms to countries with arms embargoes. It is becoming increasingly easy and cost effective to outsource production and ship components around the world. Weapons-producing corporations are taking advantage of this and opening production facilities in China, India and other areas.

However, these areas are not subject to or do not uphold the embargoes that bind the industrialized states, so it is inevitable, under the present system, that weapons with Canadian components will arrive in Sudan and other countries with questionable human rights records. The recommendation is for more arms controls to be placed on the export of components from Canada and for those controls to be applied on Canadian companies operating facilities outside Canada as well.

Will the government take up this responsibility and ensure that no one is benefiting from the sale of arms to Sudan?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her question. She should know, however, that the British are conducting a study on the issue, with Canadian support. Canada does not sell any arms directly to such countries.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the last decade we have seen an increase in conflicts and emergencies, both natural and man-made, which have led to the disruption of social, political and economic structures. The Canadian government's record in providing assistance has been mixed. In recent years, Canadians have been asked to respond to numerous crises such as Afghanistan, the Lebanon evacuation and the genocide in Darfur.

The Canadian government dealt with some in a piecemeal manner while others were given significant resources. The government has absolutely no protocol to deal with such emergencies. When will the Conservative government put such a protocol in place? We need to know what our government's response will be in times of crisis.

Finally, is the government willing to send troops to Sudan, yes or no? If not, will the government use our place at the United Nations to put sanctions on Sudan?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is simple: before we send troops into a country, we have to be asked. That is the main reason we are in Afghanistan: the Afghan government asked us to help rebuild the country. In the case of Sudan, there has been no request for Canadian troops.

Nevertheless, the Government of Canada shows compassion to countries faced with serious humanitarian crises. And it is CIDA's mission to help those people.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Gatineau for a very short question.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are here tonight for a take note debate on the situation in Darfur. We know that the situation has been deteriorating for over 20 years, that Khartoum is not cooperating and we are dealing with the problem of getting humanitarian aid to the people affected.

My question for the minister is this: how long are we going to wait for the Khartoum government, that is, Omar al-Bashir, before we act? Must we wait as the genocide continues? Or is Canada currently in a position to reach a solution to this situation, one that goes beyond humanitarian aid?

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, for a short response.

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, in response to the hon. member's question, I would like to emphasize that Canada is very committed to Sudan in every area, not only in terms of logistical support, diplomacy and peace building. Canada is providing military equipment and has provided humanitarian aid to the public. It is Canada's way of working towards a resolution in Sudan.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I am rising in the House tonight to address the very serious humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Darfur. Since 2003, there has been an escalation of violence taking place in the western region of Sudan. Thousands of people have been killed. Thousands more are dying from malnutrition and disease. More than two million people have been displaced and live in horrific conditions in refugee camps. The atrocities are so serious that in my view, what is taking place against the black African population in Darfur amounts to genocide.

The government in Khartoum, through its militia, specifically the Janjaweed, are targeting and killing the black African population. Therefore, there is no other way to describe the situation other than as a genocide.

The first thing that springs to my mind, when I hear about such atrocities, is the concept that Canadians have championed, and that is the responsibility to protect. If the situation in Darfur does not justify the need for the international community to act under this principle, then I cannot even imagine of a situation that will.

The responsibility to protect is an evolving framework, stipulating when an international community should take multilateral action to stop the large scale humanitarian crisis. The principle argues that the international community has a collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when the presiding government is unwilling or unable to stop it themselves.

In Darfur there is a genocide taking place and the government in Khartoum, led by President Omar al-Bashir, has been unwilling to stop it. President al-Bashir has the ability to stop it, but he refuses to do so. He has allowed a force of 7,000 African Union troops to be stationed in Darfur, but they have proven to be ineffective. He is now preventing a contingent of 20,000 United Nations troops from being deployed to the region. Without these troops there can be no security in that region.

The responsibility to protect evolved from the fact that about 11 years ago, the international community stood by and watched the savage genocide take place in Rwanda. Half a million people, half a million Tutsis, were killed by the Hutu extremists. After the dust settled, the international community said “never again”. Yet here we are watching history repeat itself.

The international community, through the United Nations, has taken action, but more needs to be done. The international community originally viewed the African Union leadership as the best way to resolve the crisis, and we have heard that tonight from the government. However, the African Union has proven to be incapable of deterring further attacks.

Hindsight is always 20/20, so I will not stand here tonight and criticize what has taken place in the past, but we need to be strategic going forward.

The United Nations Security Council resolution 1706 ordered a force of 20,000 UN troops to be deployed to the region. As of today, they still have not arrived because of the resistance of the Sudanese government. The UN action is a right one, but a UN Security Council resolution is meaningless unless the political will exists to make sure it is enforced.

Therefore, the international community needs to exert more pressure on the Sudanese government. The UN could start by getting its member states to strictly enforce the oil embargo that was ordered by the Security Council. The United Nations could also rush forward trials, arrest individuals and start the trials for the individuals who were responsible for the genocide. I believe putting government officials on trial is an important exercise and has proven to be effective in the past with the trials in Rwanda.

The international community has to let the leaders around the world know that crimes against their population are not acceptable. The Government of Canada has supported the will international community up to this point. We have spent millions of dollars on providing logistical and tactical support to the African Union to better equip them to stop the fighting. We have also provided millions of dollars in aid to help provide shelter, food and medicines, which are badly needed to improve the overall humanitarian situation.

Yet in the face of the present situation, we must also ask ourselves if we could do more to stop this conflict. I believe Canada should take a leadership role in Darfur.

In conclusion, two things are clear. First, a genocide is taking place in Darfur. Second, the United Nations peacekeeping force is the only way to stop it. If Canada and the international community does not come together now to implement the responsibility to protect, then when.