Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I was not, Mr. Van Loan. That was totally uncalled for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Van Loan, he may have been smiling or laughing, but to determine what he was laughing at is a tough point.

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

I saw him laughing at it, but I'll take his word that he was not.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

First of all, there was no laughter on this side.

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

The reality is that if you didn't have Hezbollah, a listed terrorist group, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they wouldn't have been able to carry out the incursions that launched this very unfortunate conflict. It has led to such loss of life, such bloodshed, and such damage to the infrastructure that has so harmed Lebanon.

Remember, Israel had withdrawn from south Lebanon. Nobody has made reference to that so far today. No one has given them credit for having done that. Withdrawing from south Lebanon did not achieve the kind of security that we were hoping for. If the answer is to get along and get out of the way, history has now demonstrated that's not good enough. You actually have to deal with it sometimes. And sometimes it takes leadership to deal with hard questions. Hard questions involve being willing to stand up and say that terrorists and democracies are not the same thing; they are two qualitatively different things and they are not morally equivalent.

I think a stable peace has to be conditional on the elimination of the terrorist threat from that area. We would like to see efforts in that regard. If the international community can work to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, that will be a major step towards a long-lasting peace in that area.

I hope that all of you around the table agree with that proposition. I don't think it's an outrageous one. And I hope that everyone around the table will encourage all other countries to do what they can to advance that proposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

I have two more speakers on the list.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

As was said a few minutes ago, I believe the government is being very clear about the issue of a ceasefire. It was stated publicly twice before, and then once again now in this addendum to the motion. I think it's very clear how the government feels and how the minister feels about the future.

I want to talk a little about having a balanced approach. The real question is, why should we have a balanced approach? We have troops committed in Afghanistan to a war on terrorism. There's little difference between being a terrorist and hiding amongst the civilian population and shooting rockets into another country. I believe we have an obligation to face international terrorism head-on and not to consider it on a balanced approach basis with other types of conflicts and concerns.

We have a situation with the Hezbollah. From earlier comments, it is considered a cancer from within. It has some 12,000 rockets that are hidden throughout Lebanon. They say they're activated or stored in garages. They're small, portable, and they can move in and around the civilian population. How do you deal with something like that? Hiding within the civilian population itself and shooting rockets will draw fire to that rocket location. Somebody said earlier that there are technologies that can track where the rockets are coming from. That's where they're sending their smart weapons.

The other issue that was mentioned is where these Israeli smart weapons are coming from. Well, where are these Hezbollah rockets coming from? It's certainly not the Hezbollah community itself making them. So you have another international extent to the situation that makes it hugely complicated. The circumstances where you've actively called for a ceasefire, but you have one side that does not want it or has not responded to it, is another complication to the overall affect.

First and foremost, I would ask why we should have a balanced decision on terrorism. We have acknowledged that we are in a war on terrorism. I think we have a responsibility to face that head-on. If the two parties do come together and a ceasefire is arranged, of course we want the killing to stop and of course we want this issue to end.

This is a tragedy of immense proportions. I can only think back to your comment about your family and discussions I have had with some Lebanese who had family and friends over there. My wife said it's only by the grace of God that our two daughters aren't travelling in Europe someplace. I know what we would think. We would fear for their safety too.

Of course we're concerned, and of course we have compassion for this situation. But I believe we have to approach this on the basis that we have an unusual circumstance here. You have a terrorist organization fully embedded within a country, and it's very difficult to delineate the boundaries. It is an unusual circumstance that is not using the rules of traditional warfare. It has to be approached from that aspect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This is just for clarification. Perhaps Mr. Van Loan didn't do this purposely, but he misrepresented a shaking of the head, and perhaps.... There's a certain amount of disbelief, because Mr. Warawa talked about political mischief, and to misconstrue it in the way he did, that it was laughing.... Absolutely no one would laugh, when you look at the situation.

I think my statement and discussion earlier clearly illustrate.... Just as you seem to be laughing and smiling, I don't believe you're laughing or smiling about what has taken place and continues to take place there, but it's that sort of political mischief.

I think the record will be quite clear on a number of things. There's no room for that sort of political mischief here. The record will clearly show there's been a filibuster going on here. Peter, if we check, I believe we'll see that this afternoon a good hour and a half, perhaps more, has been taken up by your very capable filibustering, and it's really unfortunate.

We're talking about a ceasefire. What we're quite clear about on this side is that we talk about an immediate ceasefire. Saying yes, we'd like to see a ceasefire, but we want a whole set of preconditions.... That could be a month from now, it could be a year from now, it could be ten years from now, or the conditions may never exist.

Someone asked, does Canada have the capacity to force a ceasefire? Of course we don't. But Canada has the ability to take a moral position. We have moral suasion. We've had an international role in the past that allowed us to have influence beyond the size and capacity of our resources. And following in lockstep with the sole country besides Canada that's not calling for an immediate ceasefire—following in lockstep with the Bush administration on this—does us a tremendous disservice in the future and undermines the moral position we've had in the past that's allowed us to punch above our weight internationally and diplomatically.

All we're asking for is this. You've agreed a ceasefire is necessary, and we agree that Canada on its own does not have the capacity to impose an immediate ceasefire. We're calling on this government to take a moral position to call for an immediate ceasefire. The Prime Minister obviously has very good and tight relations with the U.S. President. This is a time to place the call, to try to convince the U.S. President that what he's in fact doing, besides being a party to the destruction of a nascent democracy, is in fact building the capacity and strength of Hezbollah in the long term.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

A number of times you've mentioned the filibuster. I'll just say that so far the opposition has had ten speakers and the government has had eight or nine speakers, so it's fairly balanced.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just for clarification, I think it's not the number of speakers, but the amount of time each speaker has taken. I think the record will be clear on that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I've attended filibusters in the past where one side has gone on forever. We're trying to be fairly balanced here today.

We have one more point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Telegdi is not a member of the committee. He has been subbed in. He was there in the region in 1956. For him to speak requires unanimous consent, and I'd like to seek the unanimous consent of the committee to allow Mr. Telegdi to speak for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin. I know you've been here for many years and know that your motion is obviously out of order. You can't move a motion on a point of order, nor can you move a motion when another motion is under debate.

Mr. Van Loan.

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

Perhaps I could pick up on a couple of points that were raised by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. In terms of a filibuster, I guess the opposition's definition of a filibuster is actually getting to hear the witnesses you were supposed to hear before you make a decision. So I think trying to allow the witnesses to speak and present to us is hardly a filibuster. I have a very different definition from that of Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Hearing from the people is the normal way you should proceed in a committee in any matter where you're trying to make judicious decisions. That's how I thought we operated, and the government thinks that resisting shutting that down is a filibuster. The opposition thinks that...but I have a different view.

Let's talk about leadership. I think it's important to recognize that as Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said, Canada has lost its traditional leadership role that allowed it to punch above its weight.

Let's look at the facts. The fact is that Canada had lost its leadership role. We weren't invited to tables anymore because we didn't have any credibility. The meeting that took place in Rome was of the Lebanon Core Group. It had been established for a number of years I believe when the Liberal government was in power. Canada wasn't at the table then. Canada wasn't invited to the table then, because under the previous government, we had lost credibility. We didn't have any weight. Nobody cared what we said or did. Under this government, having reasserted authority and leadership, having taken responsibility on the world stage, Canada is once again being invited—as we were to the Rome meeting on the peace talks on Lebanon. We were invited by the Lebanon Core Group to participate in a way we hadn't before. And I think this is the strongest evidence that Canada is once again resuming a leadership position on the world stage, which is something we can be proud of.

It goes to show that not having a position and not standing for anything doesn't get you anywhere on the world stage, while actually showing leadership and having positions gives you credibility. And that's why Canada is once again invited to an important table that's seeking to address this great conflict and bring about peace. That's why Canada has been able to play a leadership role again, because we're at that table.

A couple of years ago when the Liberals were in government, we weren't at that table, and we weren't even invited. Canada was nothing but the most outside spectator. So to that extent, I think we can be proud that Canada is once again punching, perhaps not yet above its weight, but once again we're gaining credibility and getting a place at the world's important international multilateral tables that are addressing these issues and making these decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

We welcome Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You made a comment earlier in the debate: what if we were there? Mr. Van Loan made comments about the Soviets and the Germans. Fifty years ago this year, Mr. Chair, I was in Hungary when the revolution started on October 23. There was a possibility for the revolution to succeed, but any possibility was stopped when there was an invasion that took place in Suez. At that time--because you made reference to Suez--what we had were three countries, Israel, France, and England, that undertook an adventure that shocked the world. The overwhelming majority of the nations were against that. Canada played an incredibly proud role in establishing peacekeeping for which our former Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The situations then and now are totally different. Now, we stand with a small minority of nations on letting the fighting continue, not calling for an immediate ceasefire, and we're standing in an alliance, if you will, just like the coalition of the willing, contrary to what the nations of this world are calling for.

Civilian deaths are horrific. Women and children dying is horrific. Men dying is horrific. Soldiers dying is horrific. There's no question that there's universal condemnation around this table of the actions taken by the Hezbollah. There's no question that commentary by Iran about Israel not having the right to exist makes it virtually a pariah nation. The world community is united on it. But what is at question as we are here is, is Lebanon going to survive as a state or is it going to turn into a failed state? Are we going to blame Lebanon for not having the capacity to stop Hezbollah?

Mr. Chair, we had commentary that this is a complex issue for which it's going to take all our resources as an international community to find a lasting peace. But you don't find a lasting peace when you're creating innocent victims on both sides.

This is a committee of Parliament. If you look at what's in front of us, essentially everybody in the opposition mentioned it. We want to call for an unconditional ceasefire and we want to call it now. We want to put in place a capacity in the international community--and it's going to be tough, particularly with the death of some UN soldiers. They're going to have to put in some capacity to stop the Hezbollah. We know that, and it's going to be a difficult situation, but it is not helped when there is just such an incredible devastation in a country that we all say we haven't got any grievances against, such as Lebanon. We want Lebanon to succeed. The international community wants Lebanon to succeed.

Mr. Chair, we should not play politics on this issue, because we're not going to achieve what needs to be achieved. Laying blame at this point in time isn't going to stop the killing. What we need are the conditions for a ceasefire and having the international community on board.

Fifty-six years ago in November, the Prime Minister of Hungary made a plea to the world, as the Soviet armour was rolling in, and essentially the plea was, help, we want to be a neutral country. The Prime Minister of Lebanon made a plea to the world because he knows what the devastation is, and they said they will not negotiate unless there is a ceasefire.

In 1956, the world didn't listen. I'm hoping we do not make that same mistake now, because the lives that are being lost are irreplaceable. I think there's a real union of opinion in this country and around the world that the present course of action and the status and style of the coalition of the willing can't continue, and it's not going to bring us peace in the Middle East.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak very briefly. I want to thank the member, Mr. Telegdi, who just spoke. I think it's sobering that he's reminded us of the experience of 50 years ago in Hungary, which he lived through. I would hope it is an appropriate note on which we could actually move forward with the business of this committee.

We've had a full discussion about a proposed alternate motion. It really is that. It's not really an amendment; it's an alternate motion. I think that on all sides, it would be tiny display of leadership on our part to say, let's move forward from there to hear from the International Red Cross.

I don't know whether Madam Lalonde would agree—if we deal with this motion, dispense with it—to have her motion tabled, so we can hear from the International Red Cross witnesses at this point.

I know that I pleaded with the chairman last Friday to agree to extend the hours late into the night and into a second day, if necessary, in order to hear from some witnesses—if we were going to hear from witnesses at all, which is not a decision the committee ever made. But I would hope that we could act in the spirit of the position put forward by Andrew Telegdi, in order to be reminded of the severity of the situation. I don't think any of us want to be here just debating. I think we want to show that we are responding to what is a very deadly, dangerous, and deteriorating situation in the Middle East.

I know that procedurally there isn't a provision whereby we call for the question. But of course, the way to go to the question is for all members to recognize that we can cease debating it endlessly, dispense with it, and move forward.

Can I ask—I know it's a point of order—the question about whether the International Red Cross witnesses are still with us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

As far as I know, they are not. Perhaps they are? I was just told they aren't.

Anyway, back to Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, when we started this debate this afternoon, we made it very clear: let's listen to the witnesses who have come all this way—the witness from CIDA, the Red Cross, the Lebanese community, and so on.

However, the opposition refused to listen to them because they had a political agenda in this committee business, which they wanted to talk about. Now that they've already talked about it, now that they have their political point of view out, all of a sudden it's convenient to call back the witnesses, Mr. Chair.

Our question here is not the issue. You played politics, you changed the agenda, you hijacked the agenda, contrary to the spirit of what was written in that letter, which was to listen to the witnesses, and that did not happen. Now, Mr. Chair, to try to portray what they're saying is a horrendous situation, and so on.... Where were they when it was time to listen to the witnesses?

If I look out there, they have gone; almost every witness is gone. It's only the witness who are convenient to them....

Mr. Chair, I don't think that is an appropriate way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

I see the witnesses have gone. There are others who are here who may not be acceptable, and I am not going to go down that road of picking and choosing the witnesses.

We do have an amendment to a motion. Is this to the amendment?

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

Very quickly, it's to the suggestion of Madame McDonough, which I find bizarre in the extreme. It's exactly Madame Folco's suggestion, which we supported several hours ago as the best way of proceeding, which Madame McDonough resisted and voted to shut down. So I'm baffled as to how, in the space of three hours, she has changed her opinion. Mind you, she did the same thing on Afghanistan in a few hours, but to me it's bizarre.

We put forward that proposition, we wanted to proceed in that way, and you voted against it. You voted to shut down the witnesses, and now you've changed your mind.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Are you asking me a question you want me to answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, that's not to--