Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is no doubt that the subamendment I'm proposing is far closer to the amendment under debate than that amendment is to the motion it seeks to amend. So if we're talking about proximity, there's no contest there. If this is out of order, then Mr. Martin's motion is out of order. So if this amendment's out of order, then your amendment is out of order, because this is far closer to yours than to what you're seeking to replace, in terms of Madame Lalonde's motion, by way of amendment. So from that perspective, it's quite clear.

I would like to take this opportunity now to formally move that we adopt the wording similar to that of the European Union, “With regard to the current conflict in Lebanon, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs calls for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by sustainable ceasefire”. I think this is an opportunity for consensus, an opportunity to stand together multilaterally, which so many have said today is what they want to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Procedurally speaking, I must allow debate on the subamendment. Do you wish to have debate on this subamendment, or can we move to the question?

Mr. Van Loan, do you wish to have debate on this subamendment again, or can we move to the question and, whether this passes or fails, go the next step?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would like the opportunity to speak to it at least once.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's your turn, and then mine.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

What we're trying to do here, and what we've heard about many times today, is to establish the importance of Canada's working together with other countries, multilaterally, to achieve peace. That's the sentiment I heard from just about everybody on the opposition side. There was a suggestion that Canada was standing alone, not standing with others, and that it was isolated, that Canada was the only country in the world with its position.

What we are putting on the table is a proposition that puts us together with the largest other bloc of countries that is taking a position on that issue: the European Union. Doing so assures that we're moving towards an immediate end to hostilities. I think that's what people want to see happen. But besides that, the proposition adds the concept of sustainability.

If having weight is the desire of the members of the opposition, which is what has been so often expressed today, we should be standing together with the European Union. I'm surprised that they aren't embracing it after having talked all day long about the importance of not being isolated. Instead, they want to barge ahead with a motion that would isolate Canada, that would have us staking out a position that is, however minimally, different from that of the European Union.

I thought it was a good effort at consensus. I think that's why it came out of the European Union--because it was that kind of effort, a consensus--and I think adopting it would add our voice to theirs. It would give Canada greater weight.

This is a great opportunity for us to take. Again, why would we be against the concept of an immediate end to hostilities and of working towards a sustainable ceasefire? It is inconceivable to me why we would be against adopting that, especially when doing so would put us together with so many other countries in the European Union.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, go ahead, please.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, in defence of the last motion, the NDP's Alexa McDonough said, let's do that, and she gave the rationale: stop the killing. She wants to immediately stop the killing and then move forward to look at how we can have something sustainable.

This European Union motion that we are adopting over here does precisely that: it calls for an end to the hostilities so that we can stop the killing, but then it goes along to suggest that we work towards a sustainable peace. Without working towards a sustainable peace, as this motion proposes to do, we are doing only half the work. We are stopping midway, and we are not completing the work.

This motion allows us to stop the killing immediately, which is what everybody wants, and then proceed ahead for a long-term, lasting peace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Casey, go ahead, please.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

I just think this is a great opportunity to add our voice to that of the European Union. Imagine--all the countries in the European Union have agreed to this wording, and if we add our voice to that, it will make that even more effective as opposed to having the European Union going one way and Canada going another. I think it would be much more effective and much more significant if we adopted the same words, and I will support this subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Goldring, go ahead, please.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes, I too believe that this is an opportunity to work together and work in concert with the European Union. I think it sends a terrific message to be able to have this approved. But I also have difficulty with the other motion that focuses on the Israeli-Lebanon border, and there is some discussion as to how definable that is. Also, is there any possibility that another border might be involved in this as this grows throughout the region? In other words, I think it complicates the issue by putting specifics of borders into a motion, whereas the motion from the European Union itself is very clear, very concise: end the hostilities, and then follow by working on a sustainable ceasefire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Is there any other debate on that? If not, we will call the question on the subamendment. A recorded vote on the subamendment has been called for. I'll ask the clerk to again read the wording that was adopted today by the European Union, and we will have the opportunity to accept or reject it.

[The Clerk]

Moved by Mr. Van Loan, a subamendment:

That the amendment be amended by replacing all the words after “the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs” by the following: “calls for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, we have the question, and we will proceed.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll go back to Mr. Martin's amendment. Is there debate on the amendment?

Yes, Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Very quickly, I think after we have failed to endorse the concept of sustainability, after the committee has implicitly chosen to stand separate from the EU, I have difficulty supporting a motion that is so empty and so tentative when we could have had something much more robust and stronger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

Mr. Obhrai, go ahead, please.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Rejecting the motion that we put forward, which called for the end of hostilities and sought an immediate ceasefire, clearly shows that the opposition is playing politics with this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Casey, go ahead, please.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I'm ready.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Can I call the question?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going to have our clerk read the question one more time. It is a recorded vote as well. This is the amendment to Madame Lalonde's motion.

[The Clerk]

The amendment reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after and including the word “Given” with the following: That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Canadian government to urge an immediate ceasefire by all parties across the Lebanese-Israeli border as expressed by the Blue Line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll have a polled vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7 ; nays 4 )