Debates of May 1st, 2006

Darfur

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am very impressed and moved by not only the member's knowledge and desire to understand what is happening in Darfur but, in his analysis, to find out what our role would be if we were to actually send troops. That was what our colleague on this side was speaking about in terms of avoiding the kind of military intervention that is occurring in Iraq.

As I understand it, the most recent major condition that has been put forward by the Khartoum regime is the integration of the armed forces that would include rebel forces, those who in fact, as the member has outlined, are engaged in the kind of activity that we deplore.

I wonder if the member would outline what the two RCMP officers are doing and whether he sees a role that the Canadian military could play in terms of helping the Khartoum regime to meet that condition, which is the integration of the forces. It seems that is a major hurdle that has to be overcome. I wonder if the member would expand on that.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, restating just briefly, this is not, nor can it be, strictly some kind of military intervention. When we are dealing with forces as inhuman as the ones that are unleashed upon the people of Darfur, there obviously has to be a present force of some kind. If that means we need to help the African Union forces, then we need to give that consideration. However, there has to be a wide spectrum of intervention, including humanitarian aid and diplomatic presence.

I am glad the hon. member raised the issue again of the RCMP officers. The RCMP, up to 1995, led the world actually and was the first in terms of police forces going into these areas. There is a difference there obviously between soldiers. They have being able to have an influence by their presence and by sharing their experiences with those policing forces who are perhaps not used to basic respect for human rights. That is their overall job there, to be an influence, to share their experience, and to hopefully begin to change literally the mentality of policing forces that now exist. It has to be comprehensive. It cannot just be policing. It cannot be just military. It has to be a comprehensive approach.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate and put a question to the minister.

The minister mentioned standing with students who are concerned about what is happening and who are feeling very passionate about what is happening in Darfur and the crimes against humanity there.

In my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas at Simon Fraser University, an organization was formed called Canadian Students for Darfur. It was organized by the former president of the Simon Fraser Students Society, Clement Apaak. It now has members in over a dozen university, college and high school campuses across Canada, including Alpha Secondary School in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas.

Canadian Students for Darfur has worked with the Pacific Region of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Mr. Mark Weintraub, and the very small Darfurian community on the lower mainland of British Columbia to do a lot of public education and awareness and to have public demonstrations. They have entertained a number of very prominent speakers, including other members of the House.

They have put forward an agenda for action on Darfur. I wonder if the minister could comment on this agenda. They call for the supporting of the rapid transition from the current African Union force to a robust chapter 7 mandated UN protection force; the enhancement of troop support to allow for the civilian protection mandate to be achieved; the enforcement of the UN Security Council ban on offensive military flights over Darfur; support of the UN Security Council resolutions to bring the perpetrators of international crimes to justice before the International Criminal Court; disarming the militia groups collectively referred to as the Janjaweed; enabling the internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their homes; and monitoring and enforcing the arms embargo, mandated under UN Security Council resolution 1591--

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry, in order to keep it within the confines of brief questions and comments I will have to cut the member off and allow the Minister of Public Safety to respond.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, I can understand the member wanting to make known the key representations of those student groups. I met with a number of them myself, groups like that one and other groups.

What impressed me at the time last year when we were having meetings with these student groups, perhaps a little earlier in the cycle of the year, was that they were making these commitments and spending a lot time not just holding press conferences and not just rallying but they spent a lot of time even sacrificing their own exam time to really think through some of these issues at arm's length from parliamentary debates. They brought forward many of these ideas.

There is a place for an international court or international tribunal that would look at the war crimes that have been committed. I believe there could be a special designation of such an international court. I agree with the disarming of the Janjaweed and bringing some understanding to that regime if members of the regime would open themselves up to it; the definition of what a civil force is supposed to be, a civil armed force, and how it is to be subject to a ruling democratic regime that exists under the rule of law; the return of displaced people to their areas; and resolution 1591. Those are all particular resolutions of the student group that are worthy of consideration and support.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Public Safety on this issue. I know he has had a long standing interest in this area.

The question I have is fairly simple. If we look at Khartoum's history with respect to the conflicts not only in Darfur but also going back to the conflict in the south that resulted in two million deaths and four million individuals displaced, we see a disturbing pattern of behaviour. Khartoum engages in false peace negotiations with the international community and then does everything in its power to obfuscate, block, prevent, and deter any kind of meaningful action on the ground to really stop the carnage that is taking place, aided and abetted by itself .

Therefore, even though this particular round of peace negotiations is taking place in Abuja as we speak, the problem I submit to the minister is that Khartoum, if history is an example of what we can predict in the future, will sign on the dotted line, but will simply not live up to the meaning and intent of that peace agreement on the ground. It has failed to do it for the last two years with respect to the peace agreement that it signed, allowed the Janjaweed to continue, continued supporting it, and continued to allow the human rights abuses the minister eloquently spoke about.

I think the comment, “crisis, what crisis” encapsulates everything in that small vignette that he had with a Sudanese official at the UN.

Will the Minister of Public Safety ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if Khartoum is not living up to the intent of the agreement that will be signed in Abuja and indeed the agreement that was signed more than a year and a half ago with respect to disarming the Janjaweed and calling it back and removing it out of Darfur, then the government will support the chapter 7 peacemaking initiative that is required on the ground to save the lives of the people there? A robust chapter 7 mandate will be required and will he ask for that UN peacemaking force to be assembled and deployed as soon as possible?

We both know full well, and he has spoken about it before, time is of the essence and action is required now.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, in reflection on these good questions that have been raised by my colleague opposite, there are some cards, I believe, to be played here that maybe, as an international diplomatic community, we have not fully deployed.

I do believe that a chapter 7 possibility is there. There may come a time when we have to give that consideration. I am as disturbed and as pessimistic as he is about the past history of the Khartoum regime. Winston Churchill said, “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history”. I like most of Churchill's proclamations, I would like them to stand, but I would like to see this one disproved.

Who would the regime listen to, really? Would it listen to Canada? We have two RCMP officers over there. We have sent resources. The regime has not really listened to us though. Who might it listen to? It might listen to China. China is very heavily invested in Sudan, in Khartoum. I might suggest that we could be appeal to the diplomatic sense of China. I was able to share with President Hu Jintao, when he was here on his visit last year, that after 1945 China was made a member of the Security Council because other countries had a vision that China could be a stabilizing force in their part of the world.

I think we should be appealing to China's sense of destiny, if we want to call it that, to be a stabilizing force and put diplomatic pressure on the Khartoum regime. That is one of the number of diplomatic cards that could be played. I do not know if it has been fully deployed but it should be. After those type of things, we would have to stay open to the consideration of a possible chapter 7.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton—Springdale.

There is no question that tonight we have heard a collective sense of urgency, a collective sense of despair, sorrow, even foreboding. This evening we are on the brink of either hope or disaster regarding the events that have unfolded. Some members talked earlier this evening about Rwanda, the Congo and Angola, where the world did not take collective action and in some cases when it did, it was too late.

Hans Morgenthau, the renowned theorist, talked about the state's act in the national interest. What is in Canada's national interest? It is in our national interest that there be an African solution to this problem and clearly we have a role to play. Historically, whether it is the present government in Canada or a past government, we have paid attention to this situation where we know that rapes, murders and destruction of whole villages occur. If these things occurred closer to home, we would have been called to arms, but do we have the ability to do so? We have ways through logistical support, diplomatic support, and economic support to deal with African states in the region.

We see the spillover in places like Chad. The crisis in Darfur is causing instability. That has significant implications for the sub-Saharan region. My colleague spoke earlier about the problem of a government in Khartoum, that even if we get an agreement, how will that agreement be implemented? How do we hold the parties concerned to fulfill that agreement?

Canada can play a role in supporting our African allies in this regard. The African Union wants to very strongly assert its role in this particular situation. As a central tenet of Canadian foreign policy we have always valued human rights. We are seeing the wanton destruction of human rights. A multilateral approach through the African Union and for those on the ground can play a very important role.

We have contributed over $11 million, but money alone is not going to solve the problem. To get the collective will to implement any agreement will require severe monitoring on the ground. It will require troops on the ground. It will require that we hold those who sign any agreement accountable, not only to the people of that region, but to the international community as a whole. We have a responsibility along with our friends to ensure that.

There is no one in the House who is not prepared to step up to the plate and say that we and our allies can play a collective role through diplomatic and economic channels. The fact that we may have two RCMP officers on the ground at least demonstrates that for Canada this is not simply a Sudanese problem or a Darfur problem, but it is a problem of the world community. How we react on this type of issue sends a signal to other areas. In Africa Sudan is not the only issue or problem unfortunately.

We have the collective will and the ability to work with our friends in the African Union for an African solution. I certainly hope and pray that in the next 24 to 48 hours we get an agreement which we will be able to monitor and enforce, which is critical.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, we are hearing a lot of talk tonight and nobody is in disagreement about the depth of the problem in Darfur. Some people have seen it up close; some have not. Obviously we are all hoping for a peaceful solution to it. Whether we are optimistic or pessimistic about that individually, we each have our own views. Frankly, I am personally not terribly optimistic that in the next 24 to 48 hours we are going to see an agreement reached that will be lasting.

Obviously if the peace plan is approved, then we will give it all the support needed to help make it a lasting agreement. If it is not approved or falls apart, is the only option then to do a chapter VII invasion of Darfur and impose peace by force? Does my hon. colleague have any concept of how big a force it is going to take and how long it is going to take?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I remember back in 1979 when the forces in Tanzania invaded Uganda and removed Idi Amin. Publicly there was condemnation by African leaders of the invasion of the territorial sovereignty of Uganda, but privately they were rejoicing that Nyerere's government had finally rid Africa of one of the worst blights, being Idi Amin.

The sensitivity is there about any kind of military operation. The question would be, if one does not have the political support of African states, what kind of composition of force would take place? It is very clear, as we have seen in other cases, that winning the battle does not necessarily win the war. I think it is a fair question, but it is very hard to predict the kind of force one would need, how long it would be there, what kind of stabilizing force would need to be there in the longer term and what kind of reconstruction would be needed.

There are great sensitivities. Before we invoke that we certainly need to look through the diplomatic channels at what would be the tools necessary in order to bring that about, if that were, and I would suggest probably, the last resort. At the moment, the African Union troops there need to have not only the diplomatic support but certainly the tools to carry it out. They cannot be sent in to do a job for which they are ill equipped.

It may be an issue that we may have to come back to. Hopefully we will not, but if we do, I think we have to look very carefully at what kind of composition and mandate we would be looking at.

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

Mr. Chair, we know that peace talks have failed seven times since August 2004. While all this talking is going on, people are dying in Sudan. People are being tortured by vicious warfare and women and girls are being raped. This cannot continue.

I was quite encouraged when I heard today that there would be a small investment of $10 million. However, last year's investment was $20 million for food aid and it was cut back to $5 million. It is now back up to $10 million, which is surely not enough.

Should we not immediately enforce the arms embargo in the Security Council resolution 1591, support targeted sanctions against government leaders? If we are not able to persuade China to cooperate in the Security Council so that we can have UN peacekeeping troops there, which is ideally the situation, should we join the African Union in Darfur given that there are not enough troops as they do not have enough funds to take appropriate action?

If the UN Security Council is unable to act, is there not a precedent to act outside the UN, such as in 1990 with Bosnia and Kosovo when we were able to save thousands of lives? Is that a direction the hon. member of Parliament would be interested in taking?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, we should enforce resolution 1591, definitely. I do not think there is any question that that would be a very important step. The issue, of course, as the member knows, is trying to get the collective will around that table to enforce it. That leads to the second part of the question, which is what is available outside the Security Council of the United Nations?

I believe very strongly that an African solution is only possible if the right tools are given to support the African Union and those forces there on the ground. Again, we talk about peacekeeping. I would suggest that the real word is peacemaking. As we have seen in other conflicts, the issue is not to go in and simply maintain a peace. It is to try to create one. This is very difficult. There are tools at our disposal. We will see what the next 48 hours bring. I would suggest that we will probably be back to revisit different options in the weeks to come.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I begin by commending and thanking the thousands of volunteers, organizations and individuals, in particular Students Taking Action Now: Darfur, or STAND, and the Save Darfur Parliamentary Coalition for the role they have played in ensuring that the voices of the children and the plight of women in Darfur is not forgotten.

As a nation, we cannot afford to forget that in another place in the world atrocities are occurring, which are truly unimaginable and for which there really are no words. Minute by minute children are dying of malnutrition, women are being raped, beaten and abused and young men are being lured into the culture of gangs, violence and the militia.

The United Nations has referred to the situation in Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. With almost two million deaths and four million people being displaced in Sudan, we have a responsibility to stop the genocide, to stop the atrocities and to stop this humanitarian crisis, which is occurring before our very eyes. We must take action now.

Canada has an international reputation of being a world leader for the promotion of peace, for humanitarian relief efforts and as a champion of human rights. The previous Liberal government had a commitment to put an end to the violence in Darfur. Canada was one of the top three donors upon the founding of Africa's made in Africa solution, committing over $170 million. We subsequently made the largest single contribution upon the expansion of the African mission in Sudan, committing 7,700 personnel and 80 Canadian military and police personnel to help in the process of peace building, stability and poverty reduction. Despite all of this aid, World Vision Canada has reported that approximately 10,000 more people are dying per month. The world cannot afford to watch these human beings die.

Under our previous prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, we championed the doctrine of responsibility to protect. We championed this cause in the global arena. It is incomprehensible that Canada would watch an entire generation being cleansed and wiped away.

We must protect the women and children in Darfur. We must protect the thousands of people who are dying, not with talk but with concrete action. We must be the champions of a United Nations peacekeeping mission that focuses on Darfur just like we were for the comprehensive peace agreement which was reached in 2005. Even if other countries on the UN Security Council are hesitant to move forward with a UN mission focused on Darfur and focused on achieving positive results for the people of Darfur, we must convince the countries on the Security Council that this is simply the right thing to do. We must send in our peacekeeping troops, if necessary, to protect civilians, to provide stability and to promote peace and order.

I call on our government to implement the 10-point agenda for action in Darfur, as proposed by the Save the Darfur Parliamentary Coalition. I call on the government to implement strict policy that will ensure and support the rapid transition from the current African Union force to a robust chapter 7-mandated UN protection force.

We call on the government to enhance troop support to allow for the civilian protection mandate to be achieved. We call on the government to enforce the United Nations Security Council ban on military flights over Darfur, to support the UN Security Council to disarm militia groups, to enable internally displaced people to return to their homes.

We call on the government to implement the 10-point agenda for action because it is the right thing to do. The people of Darfur need us. This is not the time for us to play politics. We cannot stand by for the sake of diplomatic relations or even financial burden. We have a moral responsibility to save the lives of thousands of innocent people who are perishing.

As the Sudanese government and the rebel groups work with the African Union and burn the midnight oil to reach an agreement, we must ensure that all stakeholders hold the Sudanese government to account, that a peace agreement finalized will be honoured and will be the start of a process to provide the people of Darfur with hope for their families will be reunited, that women will be respected and that children can learn and become productive citizens and contribute to their communities so the people of Darfur have the peace and stability that they need.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Chair, we do want to focus on the future obviously, but my colleague opposite mentioned the previous government's approach to this issue. Could she tell us whether her colleague, the member for LaSalle--Émard, when he was prime minister, raised in either of his official visits to China or in the visit of President Hu Jintao to Canada the fact that the People's Republic of China was the largest supplier of armaments to the Sudanese regime, that it was the largest trade partner of the Sudanese regime and supplier of revenues through its energy activities in Sudan?

Did the former prime minister raise with his Chinese interlocutors the repeated Security Council vetoes and opposition from the PRC to any form of constructive resolutions to the Sudanese matter?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know we must ensure that we, as parliamentarians, move forward and help the people of Darfur. What I can say is that during a previous Liberal government regime, the prime minister was committed, along with other parliamentarians in the House, to ensure that the people of Darfur had positive results, that we had a process for peace, that we achieved stability and that we provided an environment for children of Darfur to succeed.

We were one of the first countries at the table when the made in Africa solution of an African mission in Sudan was inaugurated in 2004, committing over $170 million. Subsequently, when it came time for the expansion of this mission, we were one of the largest contributors of any other country. In addition, when the United Nations peacekeeping mission took place in Sudan, we provided personnel and assistance. We also had observer status at the sixth round of negotiations.

There has been an ongoing effort, in addition to the other moneys that were given for food and humanitarian aid. However, despite all this investment, there is still a substantial amount of atrocities occurring in Sudan and we must do more as a country and as a global society.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Chair, we will take that as a no.

The hon. member mentioned, quite rightly, the responsibility to protect, and that is something we hear about often. Along with the responsibility to protect, we need to have something with which to protect.

I ask my hon. colleague whether the responsibility to protect should also include the responsibility to arm oneself, to be prepared and capable of protecting if it comes down to that. I am guessing she will say yes to that. Then I will ask her whether her party is prepared to support us when we expand the Canadian Forces and give it the capability to protect, which we have been lacking for the last many years.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I mentioned in my notes the 10-point action plan, which has been referred to and I think is being supported by all parliamentarians on this side of the House.

One of the first points was in regard to ensuring a robust chapter 7, which is mandated by the United Nations Protection Force. We will have to wait and see over the next 48 hours what the result of the negotiations are.

As I said in my speech, and I think I can speak on behalf of other colleagues on this side, we would be very strongly in favour, if required, of the deployment of troops to ensure the process of peace building, to ensure that we provide an environment for children to get educated and to succeed and to ensure that we protect women.

As a country, we have a tremendous reputation throughout the international arena for being peacekeepers and ensuring that we provide humanitarian relief and build nations. If it does come down to it, we will support troops in Darfur.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Tonight, across the country, most Canadians are sitting in their living rooms, enjoying National Hockey League playoffs. They are cheering on their favourite team. In my province they are hoping to see a battle of Alberta. They are quite taken up with what is happening in the NHL.

Tonight, in the House of Commons, a number of people from all parties have gathered, and I am pleased to see that the majority of the ones here tonight are on the same page. We are debating perhaps one of the greatest disasters this planet has at this point in time.

In 1995 we watched as an atrocity took place in a country that perhaps in some ways was not a lot different than Sudan. Most of the world stood by and watched as 800,000 Tutsis were massacred in Rwanda. We talked about the atrocity. We talked about how horrific it was. We saw the pictures and we heard the stories of murder and ethnic cleansing. We said that somebody ought to do something about this. We felt agencies, such as the United Nations, should step forward, buy nobody did anything. We all recognized that someone should do something.

Tonight, we debate another slaughter, a slaughter of innocent people, again occurring in Africa. This time it is in the Darfur region of Sudan. Again we hear Canadians and members in the House of Commons say that we should do something, that we have agencies in place to make a difference and to respond in times such as this.

Before the carnage really began in the area of Darfur, prior to 2002 or 2003, some reported that close to 200 million people were murdered in that region and upwards of three million or four million people were displaced. They have been driven from their homes in a country that, for all intents and purposes, is oil rich and should have all the resources to help its people. Yet we say that someone should really do something.

In the past three years the death toll in Darfur has reached between 300,000 and 400,000 people, depending on which statistics we look at. Men, children and women are being killed, and many other atrocities are taking place. We are watching people being moved, not just around the country, not just from one region to another, but into countries. They are migrating to Chad and other areas, looking for help.

We have put a great deal of hope in the people of Africa, that they would be able to respond to the disaster in their own continent. Perhaps too much has been put on the African Union troops. We see that effective answers to the crisis has not been forthcoming. Violations of international law and humanity are everywhere.

What needs to be done? Canada has played an integral role. We have brought dollars forward. We have made offers to that continent. However, the issue is still there.

It has been said that the world needs more Canada. Canada must step forward now.

I welcome and applaud the minister for appearing tonight and offering another $10 million immediately to help offset the starvation that is going on right now. I know that the former foreign affairs critics brought this to our committee time after time. Our foreign affairs minister spoke tonight about this being one of the priorities, not only for the government but for other governments around the world.

I just want to say that we are prepared to step forward. We want to ensure that Canadians understand exactly how dire this is and put forward every resource we have.

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

Mr. Chair, I am of the view, as I think all of us are tonight, that Khartoum is abjectly unwilling to live up to whatever peace agreement it signs on to. It has demonstrated this over a prolonged period of time in the conflicts in the south. It has demonstrated this repeatedly with respect to Darfur. It has failed to demobilize and to neutralize the Janjaweed that is engaged in the killing.

If the government in Khartoum fails to disarm, demobilize and stop the Janjaweed's actions in Darfur, is the member willing to ask his government to support the chapter 7 peacemaking engagement with a robust 20,000 person cohort to go into Darfur as soon as possible?

While the Minister for International Cooperation put in $10 million, last year we put in $20 million. The deficit with respect to the World Food Programme is $500 million, which means that 3.5 million people will potentially starve to death. Will he support an extra $10 million through CIDA's budget that will go as soon as possible to the World Food Programme?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, I just want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague across the way. This has been an issue he has brought to the House many times.

First, we recognize that there is a mechanism in chapter 7 that says that if a country is unwilling or unable to protect its people, it then becomes the responsibility of the United Nations and other countries internationally to go in and ensure those things happen.

However, when do we move in? I know that Canada in the past has talked about providing troops, police, people and resources. In some cases Africa itself has said that it wants to ensure it does it in the most effective way but that sending white soldiers into Sudan may not be the most effective way.

Speaking for myself, I believe the first thing we should do is put pressure on every country we can to make things happen in that part of the world. If the United Nations believes that chapter 7 is the way to go, then Canada will stand there. However, until then, Canada needs to step up and, as the minister said this evening, it needs to pressure other countries as well, countries that might be able to have more of an impact than we do at the present stage with our two Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the other limited resources we have.

The second question was with regard to the extra dollars. Tomorrow is budget day and we will wait and see. From what I understood, the minister came forward tonight with $10 million specifically for that. In speaking with the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers on this side of the House, we are very much aware that Canada can do more, that Canada can have a greater impact and that Canada can respond in ways like providing dollars.

We have talked about the 0.7% in the past. All parties have talked about moving those dollars up, ensuring more is available and ensuring they are targeted to countries like Sudan and Darfur. I certainly would be supportive of moving in that direction.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Chair, I stand tonight to speak about the horrendous situation in the Darfur region of Sudan. This is a speech I sincerely wish was not necessary but we can and must do something to stop the atrocities.

Men, women and children are being murdered, their villages plundered and burned. Hundreds of thousands have been driven into the desert to starve to death or die from disease. The latest estimates place the death toll at 200,000 and those driven from their homes to be over 2,000,000. Hundreds of thousands of Darfurians are now forced to live in disease ridden refugee camps. A lack of funds has caused the UN to cut food rations to 3,000,000 Sudanese in half.

The UN concern about the situation in Darfur was strongly expressed on April 7 when UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke before the commission on UN human rights on the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. He said:

--the international community would have to take action if full access was not given to human rights and humanitarian workers. He noted that reports of the large-scale human rights abuses in Darfur: leave me with a deep sense of foreboding. Whatever terms it uses to describe the situation, the international community cannot stand idle.

Last Tuesday, I and many of my colleagues from the House, took part in the remembrance and wreath laying ceremony right here in front of Centre Block. We were remembering those souls who were lost during one of this world's darkest moments, the Holocaust. We cannot justify remembering one instance of man's inhumanity to man while turning a blind eye to another.

The entire international community is looking for ways to make a meaningful intervention in this issue. I am very happy to have had the chance to speak to this important issue tonight during this take note debate and we all look forward to the best possible way to find a solution to the horrible killings and the horrible situation that currently exists in Darfur.

Canada continues to remain very active in Sudan and plays an internationally recognized role in support of the African Union mission in Sudan and is among the mission's top three international donors. Canada has welcomed the AU's recent decision to support a transition to UN forces in Darfur. Perhaps if those UN forces are in Darfur we will have a situation that is better controlled than we have today.

It is my hope that we can make a stand as a country and as a free nation to help the people of Darfur, to recognize that their needs are there, that we are there for them and that Canada will continue to play the role that it has played for so many years and be there for any international crisis. It is more difficult for us to do that with the limited restrictions we have on our manpower and on our ability to supply equipment but I can guarantee that the Conservative government will stand behind the military of our country to build us back up to the international reputation that we once honoured.

I am hoping also that Darfur's situation will be coming under control shortly by the means that have been mentioned tonight by my colleagues. It is important that Canada play a role in pressuring other nations to do their part to make the situation in Darfur a better situation. We cannot stand by idly while millions of people are killed. We must stand up and I believe that our government will do so.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have been struck by some of the statements made, not just by the member but by others in the House about the incredible atrocities taking place in Darfur and the fact that more 1.8 million people have been cast out of their homes and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

The UN, as we all know, has already identified 51 people to the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is a body that ,unfortunately, the U.S. does not recognize.

Canada, as we know, is not a military super power nor do we wish to be a military super power, but we are and can be a great moral power, a great force in the world.

Is the member of the government prepared to use our clout with our good friends, the U.S., and other world leaders, whether it is China or Russia, to influence them to ensure they are participating to end these incredible crimes that are taking place in Darfur?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, I agree with the member. Canada is not a military super force but we are a humanitarian super force on the international stage.

In terms of our inability to be there for every conflict, we will be taking steps to remedy that. We had a reputation worldwide for being there for people who need us. I would like to see us restore that reputation as soon as possible. However I am not foolish enough to believe that it will happen overnight. It will take a number of years to undo the damage that has been done to the military over the last 15 years.

In terms of whether the government would use its influence as a country, I can point out to the member that the Prime Minister has already spoken to President Bush on this issue. We are behind the international effort to make certain that these kinds of atrocities are not allowed to continue to go on. We want to take the steps that are necessary to put the pressure on the countries that can influence the outcome and we want to do that in the most suitable way possible.

A lot of things must be considered when we look at this entire situation. I probably do not have to point out to the member that there are steps that have to be followed. We have to be invited.

We want the United Nations to participate in this situation because we believe that all of the countries in the United Nations are probably the best hope the people of Darfur have. It can count on Canada for what we can do but Canada's biggest influence will be our international influence, getting other countries on side with what we need to see happen.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, before the debate tonight I asked an expert, Bo Cuit, what he thought of this situation. Bo is an expert on this because he is a Sudanese refugee. Bo lives with my mother in the house where I grew up and has lived there for the last two years. He walked out of Sudan with his brothers, one who was a child soldier and saw things that we would never think of seeing nor experiencing.

I told Bo about this debate tonight and I asked for his advice. Bo is a young man of few words and he basically said, “Tell them that they do not want to have the same mindset and the same guilt that Bill Clinton has over Rwanda”.

I wonder what the hon. member thinks of those comments. We are perplexed as to what to do but does the member not believe that this is a time for action and not to sit by and wait?

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, I believe the hon. member's question came sincerely from the heart. The comments that were made by his friend are valid comments. Those are things that person has lived through. It is experience that is speaking.

I cannot actually comment on whether he is completely right or he is completely wrong, but I can add that in my own family, for example, my niece is one of many Vietnamese orphans who was adopted during the crisis in Vietnam. She has been a part of our family now for 30 years. She is extremely grateful for the kind of chance she has had in Canada. I believe that if we have an opportunity to give the chance to other people to come to this country for the freedom that we enjoy and, quite literally, take for granted, that we should offer those freedoms.

I hope we will find a solution to this problem but in terms of advising other nations, we can only influence them in ways that Canada is able to influence them. I believe we will have a very strong voice in that matter and I think we will be very successful in having some sort of resolution to this untenable situation in Darfur.