Maurice Vellacott

[Immigration, November 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance Party recognizes that Canada is a nation of immigrants that has always been enriched by new arrivals to our shores. We also affirm our international humanitarian obligation to receive our share of genuine refugees.

However we believe that the best way to keep Canada's doors open to immigrants and genuine refugees is to improve the system so that it expeditiously processes applications and effectively screens out those abusing the system.

To do this, new arrivals must be required to produce verifiable documentation so that security and background checks can be done. Those without documentation should be detained until declared safe or deported. Failed refugee claimants and illegal entrants must be deported and those who organize abuses of the system for profit must be vigorously prosecuted.

To make the system work for those we want to welcome we must get tough on those who abuse the system and put it in jeopardy for everyone.

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my constituency name is a Cree word that means a place of peace, a place where you do not feel threatened or inhibited. It is a beautiful word. My constituency is right on the banks of the Saskatchewan River.

I enjoy rivers. I happen to live not that far from a river, the mighty Saskatchewan. Throughout my growing up years I had the opportunity and privilege to canoe on rivers, lakes and bodies of water throughout our country. There is always something calming and tranquil about being around rivers and streams. I appreciate what the member across the way has done today. I want to thank her for giving me an opportunity to walk down memory lane and have a nostalgic look at what some of those bodies of water have meant to me in my life.

There is some merit in recognizing the value of lakes and waters in our country. These days more than ever we need to be concerned about properly stewarding and sustaining this life-giving water. We should not be squandering water. We should be passing this commodity on to our children.

In the main, I would be supportive of the motion before us today. However, some questions have to be asked as we proceed.

We have a unique situation with a national rivers day when so many other days and weeks are proclaimed throughout the course of the calendar year. I have a few pages here in respect of the beautiful national parks in Canada. Many of those parks have rivers and bodies of water in them.

I noticed as well that a United States senate resolution introduced in May 1998 is something akin to what is being proposed here. As to the dollar cost I am not sure what is involved in the United States. This is one question I would raise in respect to the motion. It is inevitable when we put something into law. What is the dollar figure? I am not sure what is in the mind of the member. However our neighbour the U.S.A. has a similar resolution.

I am aware of some of the events in our annual calendar. February is black history month and Canadian radio music month. There is nothing in particular for March.

In April there is national wildlife week. Of course we have Good Friday, Easter and Easter Monday. There is also earth day, national volunteer week, world book and copyright day, Canada book day, and international dance day.

In May we have named some more days as well. The calendar is pretty full when we think about it. We are soon going to run out of days, weeks and months. In May we have world press freedom day, national forest week, the international day of families, world telecommunications day, international museums day, Victoria Day of course, aboriginal awareness week and national access awareness week.

These are a lot of good events actually. There is probably no end of other days we could put on our calendar with respect to honouring and recognizing some very good events.

In the month of June there is Canadian environment week and national public week. World environment day is on June 5. National aboriginal day is on June 21. We also have Saint-Jean-Baptiste day, national armed forces day and so on.

On July 1 we celebrate Canada Day. I will not go through July and August. I am skipping some of the lesser known days.

In October there is the international day of older persons, international music day, national family week, Thanksgiving, national citizenship week, persons day, United Nations day and world development information day.

In December there is the international day for the abolition of slavery, the international day of disabled persons, volunteer day for economic and social development, national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, and human rights day. Then we round out the year with Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

There are some very good days. I am sure the House has been enlightened by the plethora of days and weeks.

There have been numerous statements in the House when these days have come up, such as our national flag day, which is very important. It is the day on which we recognize the very important symbol of our country. Members of parliament typically make statements in respect of it and things are done across the country to honour the day.

There are other days such as natural resources day. I notice that some of the these days are sponsored by associations and are not necessarily proclaimed by the House. For example, national forest week is sponsored by the Canadian Forestry Association. It is possible for various groups, agencies and organizations to promote to the Canadian public and the country at large some of these very important ideals and concepts. That is appropriate. The initiative taken by individuals is not a bad thing in respect of these things. We have Elizabeth Fry week and mental illness awareness week.

Fire prevention week is a little special this year because of what has happened in the United States of America and the heroic actions of firefighters laying down their lives in New York.

This year it was more moving and stirring for me when I was presenting medals and awards on behalf of the lieutenant governor in the city of Saskatoon. We hope we never have to use the services of these good people but sometimes they do put their lives on the line. They risk life and limb in carrying out their duties.

Other events include national marine day and national mining week. As I said before some of these are supported and sponsored by industries and not by the House. I appreciate that because I do not think everything has to generate from this place, that this is the fountainhead of all wisdom and initiative in our country. I am appreciative when certain agencies and associations do that kind of thing.

I appreciate the member's effort in bringing forward this motion. I appreciate the waters across our country. I and my party certainly are of the view that from an environmental perspective we need to be protective and watchful. We need to sustain our rivers.

I am a little careful sometimes in making a commitment on these things when I do not know the price tag. If the motion is about various groups across the country promoting it on a voluntary basis by way of newspapers and other publications and stirring up activity in schools, clubs and organizations, then I would be for it. I would be a little more reluctant if it meant big buckets of money and lots of dollars being sent out all over the country when it could be better spent in other areas.

If the motion is about an initiative to play up the importance of rivers, riverways and waters in Canada and maintaining and preserving them, then I certainly support that. I appreciate the motion the member has brought forward.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I slipped in late but I wanted to be on the record that I support the motion before us today.

[Anti-terrorism Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the bill before us. We do want to get it into committee so that we can have it addressed there and move things along.

I will remind both our viewing audience and other members here, who are probably well aware of it, that the bill picked up on some good ideas from other parties, some from our Canadian Alliance. I think that is the way parliament should work. Many of the recommendations were made by the Canadian Alliance on our supply day not so long ago, recommendations such as providing for the naming of terrorist organizations, the ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism and a ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism. It is great when the House works that way and we are able to bring the pressure to bear on the party in power such that we get some of the legislation, some of the good stuff in there. I believe the bill is a direct result of that kind of pressure that we have been able to bring to bear on the government.

The minister emphasizes that the bill meets the reasonable test of the charter of rights. We feel that the emphasis should be on whether the legislation protects Canadians from terrorism. As the minister says, it should meet the reasonable test of the charter of rights, but more important, it should actually and practically do something to protect Canadians from terrorism with very concrete and specific measures rather than just offering feel good assurances.

As a caveat, the legislation will be of little value if the Liberals do not provide the adequate resources to our frontline forces in the fight against terrorism. It might be so much fine rhetoric and look good on paper, a nice piece of legislation to have sitting there, but we cannot actually do anything with it without resources. We cannot implement it and follow through if in fact we do not have the resources applied. There are plenty of areas where there is waste and squandering of money and those dollars could be set aside and prioritized for this very crucial fight against terrorism.

The Liberal government failed to ratify both the suppression of terrorist financing convention and the suppression of terrorist bombing convention until now. We have been after them. We were saying prior to this that it should have been done. It is regrettable, in a sense, that it took a tragedy of this proportion to finally get to the point now where these have been ratified and we are moving on to other things in the fight against terrorism.

If government had listened to frontline workers, to those who are out there day by day and know what kind of threats we face, if it had been listening to those workers who protect Canada from the terrorist threat and have over the years, but without adequate legislation and without the proper tools, this type of legislation would have been enacted quite some time ago. The United Kingdom legislation was enacted in July 2000. There is a good democracy in the world that often we follow when we see what good things it is doing. We should have been much quicker on the uptake.

Unfortunately, the legislation does not ban membership in terrorist organizations. We are basically hearing minister and others say that as long as people are not too active they can have a membership, that they can even acknowledge that they have a membership, but as long as they keep inactive and not do it a lot, then that is quite okay. However we believe that if these are known terrorist organizations membership in such bodies should be banned outright.

We have called on the government to put in place laws which would ensure that criminals are extradited promptly and without reservation to countries that respect the rule of law. We are talking about countries that honour rule of law as we do. There may be some things that we can quibble about in terms of their laws being written slightly differently or even in terms of things like capital punishment and so on, but that should not be a reason not to extradite to those countries.

Bill C-36 does nothing to address that problem. As a result, Canada is now being regarded internationally as a safe haven for criminals, even though members on the other side may protest. It is a known fact that many people regard Canada this way, especially as our laws in respect of these things are not as tough as those of some of our neighbouring countries. Canada would be the place of refuge or the haven to come to as they plan and prepare for terrorist acts.

Another concern we have and which we want to have pursued and addressed in committee is that it seems the minister and her department have been sneaking in provisions limiting access under the Access to Information Act. This is of concern. We often have complaints because we are denied certain information that in our role as members of parliament we want to get at and need access to. That is bad enough, but it is especially bad when it comes to this area as to why the government cannot proceed or move on something. We would be denied access to the information by way of some of the provisions limiting access that have been snuck into the bill.

Compared to some other jurisdictions, Canada's bill simply falls short. The United Kingdom legislation provides a list of names of banned organizations. We think that should be done. Canada does not do it. It is a little too open, general and generic. We should providing at least a starting list of names and it could be filled out, amended or have additional names added to it by regulation along the way. We think our legislation should be that specific and that it would be more helpful for law enforcement and those who will have to be on the front lines in the fight against terrorism.

The United Kingdom legislation also provides for compensation where private rights are interfered with or property is taken and an owner is not convicted of an offence. Canada does not do that. We believe that is a safeguard. Authorities may with reasonable grounds pursue a threat with respect to terrorism and yet it may be found out in the aftermath that they overreached and did not have a thorough enough basis, so we think there should be something of an offset or compensation or way of making it up to those who have been in some way unduly interfered with. The process would be better if compensation or recompense could be given to those people. Canada's legislation does not do that and we like to hold up the example of the United Kingdom legislation which has that provision. We think is a reasonable one.

The United States legislation places extensive stress on deportation issues and Canada has long been lax in this. Canada has not addressed the reality that it has become a safe haven for those seeking to avoid the death penalty. People may commit some very heinous crimes, but by getting up into Canada quickly afterward they are out of reach of these other countries where the crimes may have been committed. We do not think that is right. If there is the general rule of law with good standards and so on, we should not forbid or prevent extradition to those countries.

The American legislation also requires the administration to commit resources. I mentioned that before. I think any reasonable common sense person would say that if we have some fine sounding words and rhetoric on paper and yet there is no backup, no follow through and no resources then it is so much wind. It is just that, rhetoric, and it does not actually create the result that we want. We believe that the Liberals need to make a concrete and specific commitment in terms of resources and actually follow through and get some of this stuff done. It may sound very good on paper but does not amount to much if in fact there are no resources.

In the days ahead it will be the bounden duty of the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, to point out those shortcomings. We will be pressing in committee to try to get a good piece of legislation so that we can combat and defeat terrorism. We should do it together. I am grateful for the comments that other members have made and we will as a party press these issues and point out those shortcomings to in the end improve the legislation.

[Sudan, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to take an example of that, a low Flight to justify his position, CSIS documents show that the Sudanese regime has continued to very aggressively pursue an agenda of international terrorism. It has used its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given diplomatic credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in the world. It has actually budgeted for international terrorism. It has worked with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on civilians.

Again, I ask the foreign affairs minister, what more does this brutal Sudanese regime have to do before the Liberal government will condemn it?

[Sudan, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to take a see nothing, do nothing approach toward the extremist brutal regime in Sudan. As recently as two days ago in this very House, the Liberal government refused to condemn the Sudanese government for its crimes against humanity and genocidal acts toward its own citizens.

Why will the Liberal government not condemn this terrorist and genocidal regime?

[Human Rights, September 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has been shamefully silent about the crimes against humanity being committed in Sudan by the brutal National Islamic Front regime.

Today the Ottawa Citizen indicates just how involved in international terrorism the Sudanese regime has been. It has used its embassy staff to raise funds for Osama bin Laden. It has given diplomatic credentials to bin Laden's followers so they can travel anywhere in the world. It has worked with bin Laden to manufacture chemical weapons for use on civilians. It has fostered close working relationships between bin Laden's followers and both Sudanese intelligence officers and high ranking Sudanese military officers. It has used its military officers, working with al-Qaeda members, to ship arms across the country of Sudan.

Also, CSIS documents say that for the past 10 years or more, bin Laden operatives have used Canada as a support base for terrorizing Americans. The CSIS report states that the group al-Jihad in Canada is part of a co-ordinated international al-Jihad effort aimed at pursuing a terrorist agenda.

The Canadian government should condemn the brutal Sudanese regime. It is shameful that the Liberal government is turning a blind eye.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is an honour and, in some sense, sad that I am here participating in this debate. I am sure other members would prefer not to be here and that things were going well in the farming communities across the country.

I speak particularly on behalf of the farmers of the Saskatoon--Wanuskewin constituency, but we know there is a major problem for Canadian farmers and agriculture producers from coast to coast who are suffering from drought conditions. They are facing some real burdens these days.

It has been fairly obvious over a number of years and even of late that the Liberal government does not have, as any kind of priority, the needs of farm families in rural Canada. It may say that it is not in its interest nor in the national interest, but it is very wrong on that. At a time like this, it is in the national interest to sustain and assist those who put food on our tables day by day. It is in the interest of each of us, three times a day at least.

The Liberal agriculture minister refuses to acknowledge that there is a crisis. We see him responding in the House in a rather lacklustre fashion refusing to acknowledge the depth of the ongoing farm crisis and the exacerbating impact of the drought across our country. At times, when he is pressed on it, he comes up with a briefing package that nicely itemizes or details all the help available to farmers, but it proves to be rather pitiful. It may look great on paper but there is not a lot of cash or dollars on the table when it comes right down to it.

Overall yields are down very significantly across the country, anywhere from 20% or better in the prairies. Surely in this session the time has come for farmers to get some help and receive deliverance. The government ought to finally follow through in terms of the many years of promises of a solid, long term farm safety net program. We need it and we have been insisting on it, and there is no better time than these days ahead to put that into practice.

During this session of parliament we hope the Liberals will view those who till the soil as at least equal to some of the companies across other parts of the country, such as Bombardier, that make up the so-called new economy. Air Canada has asked Ottawa for some $3 billion to $4 billion or it may have to file for bankruptcy. Well the fact is that many farmers have already had to file for bankruptcy and it has created enormous distress. Help lines have been set up across the west and elsewhere in the country. Forgive us if we fail to see the justice in a possible $3 billion to $4 billion bailout if the government goes down that road.

The Liberals have failed to clearly address the root causes of the farm income crisis which has been further hampered by the drought arriving on the heels of disastrously low commodity prices. Farmers need immediate emergency financial help and they need it now.

The Canadian Alliance has a plan which we have laid out very clearly over a period of time after consultations with farmers and by holding town hall meetings. It is a plan to deal with the immediate crisis and includes a long term vision so that our agriculture industry becomes as vibrant as it once was in the country.

It is obvious, if one looks at the record in Hansard , in committee and so on, that the Alliance considers agriculture as one of its top parliamentary priorities. Everyone can be assured that the Alliance's efforts on behalf of farmers will not abate.

This was the fifth driest year on record for my province of Saskatchewan, but I do not want to seem to be concerned only about my backyard. I had the opportunity to spend some time in the maritimes this past summer travelling with our leader, the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla. When we were in the province of New Brunswick we saw some of the effects of the drought. New Brunswick received only 17.3 millimetres of rain in July compared with normal precipitation in the range of about 102 millimetres.

Livestock producers are searching for water and are being forced to sell off their land in parts of the country. The impact of the drought is hurting cattle ranchers in B.C., on the prairies, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the maritimes.

The Medicine Hat office of the PFRA has estimated that 95% of surface water in southern Alberta is depleted. Some of those pastures may bounce back, but they will not regain full productivity until maybe a decade down the road.

When we visited New Brunswick we saw that ranchers and farmers are hurting because of the drought or the lack of rain. They estimate that their forage crops will be down by 25% to 40% in that province.

I will describe some of the impacts in Saskatchewan and the riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin which I have the privilege to represent. Oilseed production is down. Canola production is down by 38% from last year. Durum wheat has fallen by 49%, almost by half from last year, to the lowest level in recent history.

The drought is not only affecting the west or my backyard but also Ontario. Corn production is down by 20%. Soybean production is down by 25%.

We met with the head of the potato board of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture. He indicated to us that the lack of rain was expected to cut the 2001 yield crop of vegetables by at least half, if not more. That reduces the gross farm revenue by at least $62.5 million. This is pretty significant. It is not an isolated or remote spot in Saskatchewan. It is in different parts of the country.

I draw to everyone's attention some of the things that must be done, as has already been suggested by members. We have had years of neglect by the Liberal government. We are now faced with the drought and the impact of disastrously low commodity prices.

The minister of agriculture needs to get a special committee together to carefully analyze the grains and oilseed sector crisis we face.

Ranchers are asking for something that is very reasonable. They are liquidating their herds because of the drought. They want to be able to defer the tax on that sale for at least one year to allow them to repurchase breeding stock. Asking for that one year extension is not unreasonable.

Members of the official opposition on this side of the House have often talked of how existing safety net programs need to be dramatically improved to ensure they meet the needs of our farmers. Some of the suggestions for change have come from our agriculture critic, the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake. I commend him for the consistent job he has been doing over a considerable time keeping us rallied, focused and hammering on this issue.

With respect to existing safety net programs, the crop insurance program needs to be significantly improved to ensure that it covers all the costs that producers incur in seeding their crop.

The regulations surrounding natural disasters need to be amended to ensure that farmers receive compensation for inputs lost due to natural disasters, as we are facing now. If that had been in place in southeastern Saskatchewan and southwestern Manitoba, they would have received disaster assistance on the other side of the equation when they had flooded farmland back in 1998.

The net income stabilization account must be made more accessible. I have talked to countless farmers on numerous occasions who have told me how they need to be able to get better access to NISA. The calculation of NISA eligible costs should be adjusted to include grain transportation costs as well.

We have suggested other practical things such as reducing the costs imposed on farmers by the federal government. We have some pretty excessive taxes on things like farm fuel, user fees, taxes on taxes, and taxes on inputs.

We need to encourage farmer driven value added processing. The Canadian Wheat Board market monopoly is a hindrance that gets in the way. It should get out of the way so that farmers can get on with the job. That is what farmers want. They want marketing choice. Farmers' costs should be reduced by modernizing the grain handling and transportation system.

The Canadian Alliance policies have been built through continued consultations with farmers and farm groups. We put together the action for struggling agriculture producers, ASAP for short. It heard from more than 3,500 farmers at 70 different meetings in five provinces.

The member for Battlefords--Lloydminster was very instrumental in that and a key player. It was pushed forward by our lead critic, the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake. Our consultations will not stop. They will continue.

We have put in considerable effort and we need to build on that. Our leader, the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla, has been in the forefront of this in Parliament. After the last election there was a letter to the Prime Minister and we have gone after this in question period time and again. We have made almost a hundred statements on the issue. A variety of farm issues have come up that we have pressed on and that we will continue to press on.

We had a vote in the House asking for an additional $400 million in emergency help and the Liberals voted it down. The Canadian Alliance will continue the fight. We will fight for farmers. We have been leading the fight for farmers in recent years and we will continue. For more details on these efforts I would ask all those interested to visit our agriculture website at www.canadianalliance.caagriculture.

[Sudan, September 26th, 2001]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sudan, September 26th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) condemn the Sudanese regime for the recent attacks on civilian populations and humanitarian agencies working in Southern Sudan and its denial of urgent humanitarian assistance to specific needy civilian populations; (b) review its policies and relationship with the present regime in Khartoum; and (c) make it clear that the continuation of such crimes against humanity against identifiable groups of people constitutes genocide, and that these abuses must end immediately.

Mr. Speaker, the recent attack on the United States has focused a lot of attention in the past two weeks on extremist governments that support international terrorism. The U.S. state department lists seven countries as supporting terrorism and that list includes Sudan.

Sudan has offered safe haven to members of various groups, including associates of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Bin Laden himself received safe haven in Sudan from 1991 to 1996. Together he and the government entered into numerous mutually lucrative enterprises in construction, banking and agriculture. He also developed the elaborate terrorist training bases in the country with the government's thorough knowledge. Even though bin Laden is no longer based in Sudan, U.S. officials say they think he still has backers and financial support there.

Sudan's role in promoting international terrorism became clear during the trial this year of terrorists accused of bombing American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in which 224 people were killed and thousands were injured. A detailed picture emerged of the national Islamic front regime's support for and financial interactions with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

This support of terrorism by the national Islamic front goes back at least as far as 1993 when the regime was directly implicated in the previous attack on the World Trade Centre and in foiled plots to bomb other targets in New York.

I raise this issue of the Sudanese government's support of international terrorism because it is relevant to the motion before us today. This regime's supporters of international terrorism are themselves practising terrorism toward their own citizens. The same brutal disregard for human life and civil society that is found in the minds of terrorists like bin Laden is the kind of brutal mindset that we encounter in the current regime in Sudan as it prosecutes its civil war. The regime has declared, in their words, a jihad against the people of southern Sudan, including civilians, in the same way that in the past it has supported a jihad against the United States.

To illustrate how civilians are being targeted by the government, let us consider its bombing methods. The air strikes by the government of Sudan consist of massive shrapnel loaded barrel bombs being rolled out the back cargo doors of Antonov cargo planes flying at very high altitudes. They are without anything approaching the precision that would be needed to strike directly at opposition military assets. The only purpose of these crude but immensely destructive barrel bombs is civilian destruction and terror.

It is impossible for me or for most Canadians to fully grasp the magnitude of the agony, destruction and devastation that has existed in Sudan for a number of years now. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told congress last spring that “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth than Sudan”. Numerous studies and reports have illustrated what Powell was talking about. For example, an exhaustive study by the U.S. committee on refugees showed that civil war and famine in Sudan have displaced some 4 million persons and have resulted in the death of over 1.9 million persons since 1983. Since that study was completed, the numbers have risen to 2 million dead and over 5 million people displaced.

The devastation to human lives in Sudan has been occurring in the context of a civil war that has ravaged that country since 1983. The extremist national Islamic front regime in Khartoum militarily deposed an elected government in 1989. This extremist regime has waged a continuous and brutal war against the people of southern Sudan and other marginalized areas. It is not its military attacks against opposition troops that we are talking about today, but its deliberate attacks against the civilian population in southern Sudan.

Let me repeat that the government of Sudan has targeted civilians on a massive scale in its prosecution of the war. The national Islamic front is engaged in atrocities in a very systematic way. It is using forced starvation and is systematically bombing hospitals, churches and other religious centres in the south, the east and also in the Nuba Mountains. It denies food aid to starving people as a weapon of war and it is abetting trade in human slavery by its militias.

These human rights abuses are neither wild rumours nor flimsy accusations. They have been systematically documented and reported by UN special rapporteurs, the U.S. state department, human rights organizations, journalists from Europe and North America and Christian humanitarian groups including the Vatican.

Canadians as well, among them members of parliament, representatives of NGOs and representatives of church organizations, have firsthand knowledge of the situation in Sudan and have confirmed what others are saying about the despicable horrors there.

I have introduced the motion on Sudan, which you read previously, Mr. Speaker, and I will read it again for the sake of our viewing audience and for all of us. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) condemn the Sudanese regime for the recent attacks on civilian populations and humanitarian agencies working in Southern Sudan and its denial of urgent humanitarian assistance to specific needy civilian populations; (b) review its policies and relationship with the present regime in Khartoum; and (c) make it clear that the continuation of such crimes against humanity against identifiable groups of people constitutes genocide, and that these abuses must end immediately.

In the text of the motion I refer to the human rights violations that I mentioned earlier as genocide. One might say that is awfully strong language, and I believe it is, but it is quite well documented. Various authorities that are the on record, experts on Sudan and others, are using that precise term to describe what is going on there.

In Sudan, the Arab rulers in the north, with racism as a key motivating factor, are targeting the black African populations in the south for mass destruction. Tribes like the Dinka and the Nuer are being targeted, as are the various people groups in the Nuba Mountains.

To look at this more closely, let us begin by defining genocide because I know members here may have a concern that the language is too strong. In fact we find the relevant definition comes from the 1948 United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The document states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, in whole or in part;--

According to this UN definition, very clearly what is happening in Sudan is indeed genocide. Those are not my words. Black Africans are being targeted by the Arab government, which is killing them, terrorizing them, in other words constituting mental harm as understood by the UN convention, and keeping them from humanitarian aid, which has caused massive numbers of deaths.

Accordingly the U.S. house of representatives has decisively concluded that the national Islamic front government in Sudan is guilty of genocide. On June 15, 1999, and I have here on my desk the House concurred resolution No. 75, the resolution deliberately and repeatedly uses the term genocide to describe the activities of the Sudanese regime. That resolution passed in the house of representatives in the U.S. by a stunning margin of 415 to 1. If we could only get a motion with that kind of overwhelming support passed in the House of Commons in Canada.

In the resolution we find the following kinds of statements which are repeated throughout the resolution:

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

--the National Islamic Front government is deliberately and systematically committing genocide in Southern Sudan...the government's self-declared jihad (holy war) against the predominantly traditional and Christian south;--

--the Congress (1) strongly condemns the National Islamic Front government for its genocidal war in southern Sudan--

This resolution, so overwhelmingly passed in the house of representatives in the U.S., after it heard exhaustive testimony from NGOs and officials in the U.S. state department, states the belief that the terms of the definition of genocide laid down in the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide have been met and that this really is genocide in the case of Sudan.

In addition, a UN research agency has made a significant contribution to the issue of genocide in Sudan. The UN Research Institute for Social Development recently released a paper entitled "Race, Discrimination, Slavery and Citizenship in the Afro-Arab Borderlands". The paper's release was timed to coincide with the UN conference on racism in Durban, South Africa. Sudan and Mauritania were singled out for practising slavery and racial discrimination in a study of countries on the Afro-Arab borderlands.

The paper states that possibly nowhere in the Afro-Arab borderlands is the problem of race, class and citizenship in such a high state of tension between Arabs and Africans or possibly Arabized Africans and Africans as in the Sudan and Mauritania.

The study comments that fundamentalist Islam and Arab fanaticism play a very important role in this tension. In many accounts of the war in Sudan the factor of racism has not often been taken sufficiently into account. Until that factor is understood, little progress will be made in the direction of peace negotiations.

This UN study is on racism, not genocide, but the case for using the term genocide is not complicated. It has been made by many agencies and organizations and the U.S. house of representatives. As the UN has confirmed, the national Islamic front is targeting populations based on their race. Second, they are targeting civilians rather than keeping to military targets. Third, they will go on bombing and causing mass starvation for the mass destruction of these groups.

Very briefly I will touch on something of which I think we should be aware. We do have differences within the House and maybe even among people speaking to the resolution today and possibly even the seconder of the motion. It has to do with a Canadian connection. I think it needs to be noted at this point with respect to these crimes that occur and what some have termed and authorities have indicated is genocide in Sudan.

It is common knowledge that the government of Sudan is financing its war against the populations in the south with profits from the oil industry in Sudan. An oil consortium exists in Sudan in which the Sudanese government has a 5% stake. Malaysia is involved, China is involved and a Canadian company, Talisman Energy of Canada, has a 25% stake. This means that a Canadian company is responsible, we could say, and I do not know how anybody could deny it, for large amounts of money from oil revenues flowing to the National Islamic Front and indirectly then of course to the genocidal war machine.

Some have argued that if a Canadian company does not partner with this corrupt regime in oil development then another oil company would do it anyway so it might as well be a Canadian company. I personally believe, and there are others who would definitely be of this view, that it is a pretext for moral irresponsibility. If Osama bin Laden is making money from participating in an agricultural consortium in Afghanistan, would we find it acceptable for a Canadian company to be operating in Afghanistan as a part of that consortium? We would say obviously not. The difference is that in one case the blood of black Africans is flowing while in the other case American lives have been lost. We need to be consistent. These are people of the human race. They have a different skin colour, but they are precious people and people who deserve the right of protection in basic human rights as well.

In addition to Talisman's assistance in funding genocide, it has been proven that the Sudanese government is using a scorched earth policy toward civilian populations living near the oil fields so that they are cleared out for the work of this oil production, so that with respect to the Canadian company Talisman's presence there, it has contributed directly to the deaths of many Sudanese in these areas.

When Talisman went to Sudan it was fully briefed on the civil war and asked the Sudanese government for protection for its oil fields. It had to have realized that it was in effect asking the government to kill to protect it, to kill if it came to that, on its behalf in these regions.

In its public relations efforts, yes indeed, Talisman has been shown to put some money into some things and so on. However, I would still insist and I would press them and Dr. James Buckee: I think that for the most part there is not the conscience that ought to be shown. They are bereft of conscience for the most part. We need to have something of a desire to participate to alleviate the ills and some of the suffering of this part of the human family.

Talisman has made some token gestures of social spending to justify its presence in the country. However, most people have seen through that. Even Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister, acknowledged that on CBC radio after leaving politics. He said of Talisman that it has not lived up to its obligations and called the company's behaviour deplorable.

The latest disgraceful display came this week when Talisman spokesman David Mann was quoted as saying in the National Post that the U.S. might not remove Talisman from the New York Stock Exchange in the near future and that talks between the Sudan and the U.S. government show that Talisman's policy of constructive engagement is in fact working. That is complete nonsense.

I also want to point out that $57.3 million of Canadian money has been invested in Talisman by way of the Canada pension plan. It is at arm's length, but nevertheless our moneys are being invested in that. In closing, I simply feel that something significant needs to be done.

I would ask for unanimous consent that this item be made votable so that we can deal significantly with the issue of Sudan.