Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lebanon.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.
Mr. Casey, then Madam McDonough and Madam Lalonde.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you very much.
I too am in favour of the amendment.
I want to acknowledge that I don't think there's a member of Parliament I admire more than Madam Lalonde, for her good work and endless energy and goodwill, but I disagree with some of the things she has in her motion, and I want to mention a couple of them.
In the second paragraph, it says the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs “Questions the government's delay in implementing an evacuation plan”. To implement a plan you have to create one first. And I think the government did a great job in that. I don't know what organization you could call and say we want to transport 13,000 people from a war zone, halfway around the world, in two weeks and have it happen. And given the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, there were no casualities involved in any of that, in any of those 13,000 evacuees, and although I'm certain it was very uncomfortable and inconvenient to a lot of them, they all made it, and I think it's a tremendous success.
I also take exception to the comment that Canada has destroyed its reputation as a trusted third party. I don't believe that's true at all.
And just to make one other point here, her motion says that the committee “Strongly deplores that, by taking sides, the government has prevented Canada from playing a conciliatory role”. All we've done is take sides against Hezbollah, and we did that in 2002 when we passed in Parliament a law that states that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.
I'm supporting the amendment because of those, but I also want to say that my colleague said in his remarks that the State of Israel has a right to exist, and I agree with that. But I also believe that the State of Palestine has a right to exist. I believe that until there is a State of Israel and a State of Palestine with a safe, secure environment, there's not a hope of avoiding what's happened in Lebanon now.
Canada is not a superpower, but I've always felt we could do a lot more in the Middle East than we do. And I hope that maybe we can, going forward, and I hope we can help there to be a safe and secure State of Israel and a safe and secure State of Palestine.
Thank you.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make several points quickly, but I have to respond to Mr. Van Loan's statement--which I think is shared by every committee member, although I don't presume to speak for anybody but myself--that it is lamentable in the extreme that Lebanese Canadians won't, it appears, today be heard before this committee.
But let's also be extremely clear that this has happened because this government is responsible for basically abandoning the kind of balanced position that would have allowed the government members, along with the chair, supported by the rest of us—the opposition members—to ensure that we conducted our business in the balanced way that has become customary. We're in this mess because, in a way, of this chairman and government members following the lead of the Conservative government, which has abandoned any real sense of balance and inclusiveness and diversity.
Having said that, I want to say that I think there are some elements of the amendment that's before us that are supportable. I think it is clear that at least some messages are finally getting through to some government members that the outrageous lack of balance and lack of real proactive commitment by this government is not acceptable to Canadians. So there are some hints here that there is the recognition that there needs to be some balance.
I could not support this motion for a number of reasons. I want to quickly cite three.
One is that, as has been pointed out by my other Nova Scotian colleague on this committee, who happens to sit on the Conservative but no longer Progressive Conservative side, it completely fails to recognize—as did the minister here before this committee today—the connection between the continuing occupation of Palestine and the refusal to deal with that as a contributing factor to the Middle East crisis that is escalating. It fails to acknowledge that.
Secondly, it strongly condemns the launching of Hezbollah rockets into Israel but refuses to condemn Israel's disproportionate military offensive—disproportionate in violation of international law. That's not the kind of even-handed approach that needs to be taken to recognize that there are violations on both sides and that what we need to do is acknowledge this if we're to be able to move to a resolution.
Finally, it completely refuses or fails to acknowledge that hiding behind the G8 summit declaration is not a sufficient position today for Canada. Practically every country in the world that was perhaps prepared to live with the G8 declaration at the time has subsequently appropriately responded to the horrendous events that have happened since and has therefore moved to demand an immediate ceasefire. It's as though this government is making its policy through a rear-view mirror, actually in some ways appearing only barely prepared to listen to recent polls that show how out of touch they are with Canadians.
The final reason I simply could not support this is that it does not call for the immediate ceasefire that is necessary to stop the killing and begin to create conditions that will make it possible to negotiate a lasting peace.
My hope would be that we move quickly. I think we've all been immersed in this, day in and day out, all day long, from the day this crisis started to heat up. I think we've heard a lot from each other. I would hope we'd move quickly to deal with this: move on to Madame Lalonde's motion to deal with it, and then hear from the witnesses who have been patiently waiting.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:55 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to members speak for a while now. When I heard Mr. Van Loan talk about this being a sad day for democracy, quite frankly, I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry. Indeed, if the democratic procedural rules of this committee had been respected, we wouldn't be in this situation.
I've served on this committee since 1999 and never has anyone up and ask to address the committee. Of course anyone is free to do so and certainly it's to our benefit to hear from individuals, but never has the chair invited someone to appear or authorized additional spending without first seeking assurances from the committee that it wished to meet with a certain person.
That's why we find ourselves in this situation which Mr. Van Loan has qualified as sad. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a sad day for democracy. It's a sad day for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. As you know, I'm a sovereigntist, but since becoming a member of this committee, I've always felt that in this forum, one could set allegiances and partisanship aside and discuss important issues.
Until such time as we achieve our independence, we want Canadian policy to be the best for Quebeckers and Canadians and for all countries concerned. Indeed, we trust that this is what all parties want.
Today is a truly sad day for me. I'm speaking my mind. Earlier, I listened to some critics imply that we were flirting with terrorism. What's that all about? You may remember Quebec's experience with the FLQ. How did it deal with that organization? Well, it tried to understand what it was all about.
What about the IRA in Great Britain? How did that country deal with that threat? Even though the IRA murdered police officers and soldiers, the country did not resort to military action. Quite the contrary. It's important to try and understand the situation and to address problems and needs, among other things.
I have something here that I hope you have read. It was written by former ambassador Paul Heinbecker and I think I'll send it to every member. Ambassador Heinbecker is one of Canada's eminent international affairs experts. He notes the following in one of his papers.
I'll read it to you in English, which will be a first for me.
“Tilting toward Israel: By picking sides on Lebanon, says former ambassador Paul Heinbecker, Canada is set to embark on a failed foreign policy”.
Each sentence deserves to be read. He concludes with the following:
“The disproportionate Israeli response in Lebanon will, like the American invasion of Iraq, create more terrorists than it kills and make the prospect of liberal democracy in Lebanon and the Middle East ever more remote.”
This is an extremely difficult situation for western nations, and for Canada. I put a question to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE concerning the war on terrorism. I'm not only concerned about terrorism, but also about the war on terrorism. I asked if by waging war on terrorism -- and this is the question the ambassador raises -- we were not promoting terrorism further in the process, instead of promoting an interest in democracy and economic development. It's important to understand what is actually going on, because if we fail to do that, we run the risk of making some monumental mistakes and really shooting ourselves in the foot.
All parties have to realize that the international community is trying to be fair, to understand the various positions and to not allow the bin Ladens of the world to influence young people who, over and over, are seeing images of the events taking place in Lebanon. They've seen bloody images broadcast 24 hours a day over the airwaves by networks like Aljazeera and many others.
What goes through their minds after seeing these images? We need to advocate positions that rather than promote polarization, seek to attain peace. We won't achieve this objective by turning a blind eye to the situation.
In my motion, I could have called for a peace implementation force. However, there are two such forces. Kofi Anna canceled a meeting so as not to eliminate any chance of constituting one. What's the difference between the two? Some would like countries to volunteer to comprise a critical mass encircling Lebanon to protect the country from sophisticated equipment and all military forces. Others believe that Hezbollah will never be disarmed without some kind of political negotiations, especially not now that it has made some inroads on a psychological level. I'm certain that this poses quite a dilemma for Israel.
What should the next phase entail? Negotiations and disarmament are vitally important. Lebanon must once again become a fully independent country. Hezbollah, however, has been allowed to call the shots and to pass itself off as Lebanon's protector. I'm sure that's what the Lebanese believe, even though some are angry because they feel that they've been duped or have given Israel the opportunity to bomb their country.
Therefore, we're in favour of a peace implementation force. However, we'll respect whatever decision is reached by the United Nations. Should Canada be a part of this implementation force? I'm not so sure, given the stand it has adopted. We have to realize that the positions taken by Canada since this new government assumed power -- and some may argue otherwise -- have undercut our ability to intervene as an influential middle power sought out for its assistance, support and mediation efforts.
Foreign affairs is serious business and that's why I'm disappointed with this morning's meeting. At least I take this matter seriously. I'm not saying that you don't, but these are not just empty words. We have made a number of commitments and these do have an impact on people's lives.
Thank you.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I did want to start off by responding to Madam Lalonde's comments, first on the question of why we're proceeding now without hearing all the witnesses.
On that side, everybody seems to have conveniently pretended that it was because the witness list was not balanced, for whatever reason. I can't conceive of why members of the opposition didn't send in a list of witnesses. But Mr. Obhrai kindly said that we're quite happy to hear more witnesses later. To hide behind the fact that you still hadn't taken advantage of that invitation to say you weren't happy because you didn't have your witnesses is not a reason to hear from anybody.
Well, I'm sorry, the fault clearly lies with the opposition for failing to identify witnesses first and failing to take up the invitation, in front of this government at this committee, to expand that witness list—an invitation Mr. Obhrai made as we were discussing these matters. For whatever reason, you chose to proceed and debate these issues without having evidence first. So that's the boat we're in, and I think this has to be remembered.
Madam Lalonde poses a very difficult question of how to deal with terrorists. She suggests that Israel's response is, according to Paul Heinbecker, going to breed more terrorism, and therefore you should stand back, stay away, and leave them alone. That's a legitimate perspective.
It happens to be a perspective with which I disagree. It is a legitimate tactic and approach. What do you do? How do you respond to an evil like that, to a list of terrorist organizations that commit attacks against civilians? When we deal with evil forces in the world, the question of how we respond always comes up.
If you think back to World War II, as Hitler rose—and he was an evil—there was a great debate: how do you respond to that evil? For a while, the folks who said that leaving him alone was the best thing to do were in the ascendancy. As they remained dominant, that evil became stronger and stronger. Some in Israel today will say that's exactly what's happened with Hezbollah. They were left alone for years to amass thousands of rockets that now are being unleashed on civilians. The fact that they were left alone is the problem they're responding to.
After dealing with Hitler for a while in World War II, it became evident that ignoring the evil, leaving it alone, wishing it would go away, hoping we would do better if we just ignored and accommodated it a little and tried to understand it—if I may use the phraseology from others—this wasn't the case.
Ultimately, Britain and Canada and, a couple of years later, the United States and others came together and recognized that evil had to be fought. I think and hope everybody agrees in retrospect that this decision to confront the evil was a right one. As I said, it's a legitimate debate to have: whether you ignore the evil and pretend it goes away or respond to it.
Similarly, in World War II we had Stalin and the Soviet Union, and the tyranny and horrors he was unleashing on his population. Essentially there was a decision by the west to leave that alone at the end of World War II. I know Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is here and, being Ukrainian, has lots of relations with people in the Ukraine. Millions died as a consequence of that decision by the west to leave Stalin alone. There were hundreds of millions more who essentially lost their freedom and lived under tyranny for half a century. Was that a right decision or not? It certainly minimized Canadian casualties. Do we say that those millions of lives elsewhere in communist countries under Stalin's tyranny were a worthwhile cost to save our own? I don't know, but once again it's a legitimate debate.
That's the debate we have to deal with right now in talking about terrorist organizations. Do we confront the evil or leave it alone? I know where I sit. I say you confront the evil, as we did with Hitler as that rose too strongly. I think you try to find ways to deal with the terrorist threat. History has shown us that the longer it's ignored, the longer it's left alone, the stronger it becomes, and the greater the threats and the missions that get carried out.
I'd also ask this question. As Canadians, if we were faced with an armed group on our borders that was committed to destroying our country and its population and eliminating them from the face of the Earth, what would our response be, faced with that kind of evil or that kind of threat?
I ask that question and put it in those terms because that's where Israel is. They are facing, in Hezbollah, a terrorist group that is committed to eliminating them from the face of the Earth. You can encourage people to try to understand that and can say that what we should do is try to understand the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. I don't know that I can understand that. I think it's beyond my comprehension.
So I don't think understanding that from Hezbollah is the answer. But it is a legitimate debate: leave them alone and try to understand that, or confront the evil. That's the difficulty Israel faces right now.
Canada has committed, and the United Nations Security Council has persistently said on this issue, that the best thing is for Hezbollah to be disbanded and disarmed. That would be the best, not just for Israel but also for Lebanon. That's essential for the weak State of Lebanon to be able to strengthen, to grow—for that government to strengthen. It's the best way for Lebanon's sovereignty to be respected, and that's certainly what we would like to see happen.
It's a hard question, a legitimate question: what to do when confronted with evil. Do you want to leave the terrorists alone—do you want to leave Hezbollah alone and try to understand them—or do you decide to confront the evil? I'm sympathetic to the position of a country facing an enemy that wants to wipe it off the face of the Earth, that when it's under assault from that enemy, it might want to do something about that evil threat.
As for Canada playing its mediator role, Canada has always had a strong mediator role in the international sphere because we stand for principles and for values. People understand where we're coming from. They understand that we believe in democracy; they understand that we believe in the rule of law; they understand that we believe in human rights; they understand that we believe in freedom and that we stand up for those things uncompromisingly. Those are what Canada's values are, what Canada's values should be, and they do not compromise us. Standing for those values doesn't compromise us from taking on a leadership position.
Everyone looks to the United States to be able to resolve and bring about peace—in fact, they seem to broker most of the agreements in the Middle East on peace—but nobody has any illusions about whether the United States is neutral on these matters. I think they have a very clear stand. Because they have a clear stand, they are the ones consistently turned to to broker peace, through the Camp David agreements, the roadmap to peace, and so on.
There's nothing inconsistent with believing in and standing for something and being a fair, honest broker on the world stage. Those things come hand in hand.
It's what happened in 1956. Let's review it, Canada's role at the birth of United Nations peacekeeping. It arose out of the Suez crisis, and Canada took sides, unequivocally. We took a side: we strongly opposed the military action that had been taking place. We opposed the invasion. We said which side we were on. After saying which side we were on, we were able to take a leadership role and create peacekeeping.
It doesn't matter what the colour of the government is, and it shouldn't matter what the colour of the government is. That was a Liberal government in 1956, a Liberal government following in lockstep with a Republican U.S. President. I don't think anybody said that was a question of Canada simply being a puppet; I don't think we'd say today that Canada was just being a puppet of those Americans. I think Canada was standing for principles it believed in, but because it stood for something, it could also be a fair, honest broker.
I don't think the way to be a fair, honest broker is to cease to have values, to stop believing in things, to stop standing for freedom, democracy and human rights, and the rule of law. I think the surest way not to be taken seriously on the world stage is for Canada to abandon those values.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Madam Guarnieri, very quickly, and then we'll go to Mr. Obhrai.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When Mr. Van Loan gave us a dissertation of right and wrong earlier, I think he misconstrued some of my comments. My comments were in reference to the Bloc motion, which condemns Israel as well as Hezbollah. Hezbollah is already, as you know, a banned terrorist organization, but condemnation of Israel is not constructive and takes away from our point. That was the point of my intervention.
I think the polls would like to see a balanced foreign policy, and certainly they'd like to see us even-handed on these issues.
Thank you.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The NDP member is accusing the government of not being balanced. Everybody talks about not being balanced. She takes the position that the Government of Canada has gone away from its traditional positions on everything, and she comes out attacking us for taking a stand.
We are talking in this motion about permanent, lasting peace in that region, and Canada today is home to a large minority from the Middle East. We are home to Iraqis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Israelis, and everybody, and they all have points of view. The fundamental thing I have seen in my riding this time is anger in the Lebanese community because of the devastation of the infrastructure and everything that has taken place.
Lebanon went through a very serious civil war, and they've tried to rebuild Lebanon. Many of the people went back because they hoped for peace, and the country was being built. They finally managed to get rid of Syria and control the destiny of their home, and many constituents in my riding decided they could safely go back and rebuild the country.
We seem to have forgotten one fact when we talk about it. We talk about Hezbollah, which in its charter wants to destroy Israel--and so does Hamas--but we seem to have overlooked the fact that in the last two or three years we have a new player in the President of Iran, who is coming out bluntly and saying, “I want to destroy Israel”. I wonder, if the shoe were on the other foot, how he would feel if somebody talked like that. Here is an elected president who is supported, a guerilla who is dedicated to killing people. Yet today we sit here and talk about a ceasefire with a government and a movement that is dedicated to destroying that. How do you achieve a ceasefire?
Yesterday one of the Canadian Lebanese said he went home with the idea that peace had returned. Well, peace has not returned. We are back, as we see from pictures, to devastation taking place. We are calling for an immediate ceasefire. We are telling the Israelis to exercise restraint. Who's telling Hezbollah to exercise restraint? Who's telling the Iranians, who are their supporters, to exercise restraint? Nobody. Why? That is where the problem originated. Of course, the opposition won't like to hear that because it doesn't fit into their political agenda of attacking the government.
The fact remains that you want peace and everybody wants peace. My constituents call in every day, and they're scared because their loved ones are in danger. So we want a very quick peace. The question is, how do we do that?
As the foreign minister said when he went to Rome and engaged with the players over there, how do we achieve this everlasting peace? We are going to put in an international force. What international force? Who's willing to commit players to that region? How are we going to get the Government of Iran, the President of Iran, to say he is not going to destroy Israel? How are you going to do that? How are we going to tell the Hezbollah leader to stop it?
So yes, that is why the international community has asked Israel, because Israel is a democratic country, to exercise restraint. And we condemn it. But I have not seen anybody come out and say to the bigger guys, like the President of Iran or those who support Hezbollah, that they should come to the table to talk peace.
Why not? Why are they not coming to the table to talk peace? Why are they not coming to the table to talk about a ceasefire? They should come to the table. Iranians should come to the table and Syrians should come to the table and say, yes, since they are the ones who have instigated Hezbollah and are financially supporting it, they should be out there. But they're not. That is what is facing the international community.
My Lebanese constituents are saying they want peace so they can rebuild. So do the Palestinians. So does everybody in that region. Nobody wants the war. Saudi Arabia and Egypt came very quickly, telling Hezbollah they did it wrong. Why? Because they don't want the region to go up in flames. And that is the crucial factor today facing us, not getting up and saying the Government of Canada...playing the blame game. That is why we are saying, yes, let's go and talk about everlasting peace quickly. And I agree--quickly. As the foreign minister said, it is devastating to see so many people dying, devastating to see the devastation in Lebanon.
Yesterday I talked to a constituent who came out through the Biqaâ Valley, drove right through the south into Damascus and out from there. I asked him what worked, and he said let's not talk about it, because he was traumatized by bombs falling.
The point is, yes, we want a solution, but not a solution of the kind where we say yes, and then six months later we are back into the whole thing again. Canada has committed, and this government has committed, to giving humanitarian assistance. The Prime Minister said that we will be there to provide humanitarian assistance to rebuild Lebanon. We believe that ultimately, as the Prime Minister said when he was asked about foreign troops, those who are in the region are the best architects for peace--not those who are outside the region, but those who are inside the region. And that should be the priority.
That being said, I want to say, on behalf of my constituents--Lebanese and everybody--yes, we understand the pain and the suffering. To the Israelis, yes, we understand the pain and the suffering. But let's sit down and come to a lasting solution. Let's get all the regional players. You will never achieve a lasting peace solution if you do not get all the players, when a president of a nation like Iran stands up and says, I am going to blow Israel out of the water. That will not happen, and that's where our pressure should fall.
Thank you.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
August 1st, 2006 / 3:25 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
First, I want to comment on the motion submitted by my colleague Ms. Lalonde. While I like the comprehensiveness of it, I just think we need to make it shorter so that we give the Conservatives no excuse whatsoever to vote against it.
What I'm hearing from the Conservatives today is quite interesting. They're mischaracterizing the conflict right now as if it's between Hezbollah and Israel, as if they have picked an empty corner on this planet and started bombing each other, neglecting the hundreds and thousands of civilians who are killed, maimed, or displaced.
The government claims to have the moral courage to condemn targeting civilians. Well, the opposition parties have agreed with them in condemning the acts of Hezbollah that target civilians. But we also have the moral courage to condemn any acts of violence committed by Israel against civilians, and we expect the government, which claims to have moral courage, to speak up on behalf of civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Mr. Van Loan has said he knows what is right and what is wrong when he sees it. They talk about how sympathetic they are to the civilians who are being killed and displaced, but they're reluctant to call for a ceasefire. What does that mean? They're condoning the ongoing conflict. They're condoning the ongoing violence, and that is reprehensible and regrettable.
Canadians expect their government not to be neutral, as you said, Mr. Van Loan, but to be fair and to condemn violence against civilians by all parties. The best way to do it is by calling for an immediate ceasefire, not talk about it as an abstraction. It's not an abstraction to the civilians, including Canadians who are caught up in the crossfire over there. It's not a philosophical debate; it's a real tragedy, where Canadians and other civilians are being subjected to ongoing violence on both sides, in Israel and in Lebanon, and also we can't forget the Palestinian territories.
We must have the moral courage to ask for a ceasefire immediately and then bring all the sides to which you're referring to the negotiating table. We can set the conditions that are needed to make a sustainable ceasefire. But for anybody who has an ounce of heart, you cannot watch the civilian devastation and destruction and say you're reluctant to ask for a ceasefire right now. I don't care how much difference that call can make; it is imperative to send a message, a signal, that Canada unconditionally always stands on the side of the protection of civilians on all sides.
We want to condemn the acts of Hezbollah that target civilians--we'll all agree with you--but we also must protect the civilians in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories by standing up for their rights and human rights. I don't know how anybody can hide behind human rights and international law by saying let the fire continue.
So I call upon the government...and this is the Conservative Party, by the way, that is raising funds on the back of this tragedy, that is raising funds on the back of a tragedy that civilians on all sides are suffering from. Nobody is benefiting from this except the Conservatives who want to raise money from it. I urge the government to reconsider and call for an immediate ceasefire and work with all responsible parties. We're not just the friend of Israel, we're not just the friend of Lebanon; we're the friend of peace and prosperity and human rights.
Thank you.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.
I think when we talk about civilians it becomes increasingly difficult. I put myself in the position of “what if”.
What if I were in Lebanon? What if I were a civilian? What if I were the Minister of Defence in Israel? I don't know if I would ever drop leaflets from the sky telling people that there was impending danger. I don't know if I would make phone calls that there was an attack coming.
So I agree with you. On those kinds of civilian deaths, hopefully all sides are working hard. What if I were a civilian living in Israel, and at any moment rockets might come in?
So thank you for your comments.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
As we've sat here through this afternoon, through this Conservative filibuster, the dismemberment of Lebanon has continued. Civilians continue to suffer and die in both Lebanon and Israel, and proceeding in this manner to me suggests the moral equivalent of appeasement.
When the minister was here earlier today, he stated a couple of things. He said a ceasefire cannot be negotiated with only one side. That's quite correct. Later on, he stated, “We are not sure who speaks for Hezbollah...”. He spoke of a multi-faceted Gordian knot.
It's a very complex situation. We've seen a tendency this afternoon for people, although they try to be careful, to lean towards one side or another.
Unfortunately, there are no innocents among the combatants. The innocents are the ones who are dying, in large part. We heard a horrific statistic earlier this afternoon: 40% of the casualties in Lebanon have been children and infants. That's about 300 people. If we don't ask for an immediate ceasefire, what in fact rationally, logically, are we condoning? It's the continuation of what has already taken place. The gates of hell have opened up in the Middle East, and to stand aside and not take a clear moral position on this...and the only clear moral position is to call for an immediate ceasefire....
Consequently, I'll be voting against this, with all due respect, because the motion is so complex it will entail a great deal of debate. What's required isn't complicated: it's a cessation of hostilities, an immediate ceasefire.
Thank you.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to come back to one of Mr. Obhrai's earlier comments. He talked about voters and political objectives. To my mind, we lose sight of what's really important when we refer to such matters. Political objectives aren't vitally important. What is important is respect for human life and peace with all nations. When one talks about political aims, one loses sight of the women and children in the path of the bombs. I don't know what the government's political aims might be in this particular instance, but we on this side do not have any political objectives. We're concerned about only one thing, namely the moral obligation to protect women, children and the elderly who are dying and who are being murdered in their homes and in their own country. That is the reality here.
Furthermore, if I understood Mr. Obhrai correctly, he believes war is necessary in some respects and that civilian casualties are nothing more than collateral damage. I'd like to send Mr. Obhrai the names of all those who have died so that he can analyse the collateral damage. People between the ages of 7 months and 80 years are the collateral damage of which he speaks. They go by the name of Zena, Haley, Zain, Marie, Anne and many others.
If I understand this government clearly -- and it's sad, because that was not the image I had of Canada -- it's choosing to send a message of war to the international community. Unfortunately, I don't believe war is the answer. I'm a pacifist and proud of it. I'm proud to believe that dialogue is possible and that conflicts can be resolved without resorting to violence.
You teach your children, as I do, to resolve problems through dialogue. Schools throughout Quebec and Canada teach children never to resort to violence to settle disputes. What kind of example are you setting for your children? Do you sleep soundly at night? If you do, then the situation is even worse than I first imagined.
A nation is like a family. You counsel your children. The same goes for the nation. A nation represents its people and people stand for values. Mr. Van Loan, you used words liked “freedom”, “democracy” and “human rights”. You said you believed in right and wrong. I once heard someone speak of an axis of good and an axis of evil and believe me, these words did not conjure up a very pleasant image. The man who spoke these words invaded Iraq. I hope with all of my heart that you will understand that the path you have chosen is yours alone and that Quebec and Canada will judge your actions in due time.
I hope that when you look at your children this evening, you will not forget that some mothers have not yet had time to bury their own offspring, that fathers were not able to see their children's faces because they were blown apart. That's the reality of what you call collateral damage.
I'm speaking to you as a mother, not as an MP. Like all Quebec mothers, I understand that each time a child dies in this world, the heart of every mother aches. And I'll tell you why. A great man once said: “All humans are of my race.” I'm proud to believe that as well.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have a quick comment.
I am a member of Parliament for Langley, but I'm also a father and a grandfather, and I think every one of us here is deeply disturbed by the war that we see taking place and the loss of life. I came here today to listen to the witnesses, so I'm deeply disappointed that there was political mischief at work here and we were not able to listen to the witnesses--people who have left Lebanon--share with this committee some of the positive things, and provide suggestions on how we can deal with the situation in Lebanon. Instead, political games are being played here, and I find it deeply disturbing.
Mr. Alghabra said it's reprehensible to not call for a ceasefire. He was here when the foreign affairs minister shared that on July 16 and 26 Canada called for a ceasefire. We were signatory to that. So why would a member of this committee share with this committee things that are not accurate? Why would somebody do that?
It's also been said that there's reluctance to ask for a ceasefire right now. Well, who is reluctant to ask for a ceasefire right now? You heard that the foreign affairs minister twice, on July 16 and 26, asked for a ceasefire, and that Canada was a signatory to a ceasefire. You continue to say, let the fire continue. Who is saying that? Surely he's not.
So we have to make sure, as we provide debate around this table, that it's accurate, truthful, and not misleading, that we get down to the facts that will provide solutions to the huge problem we see in the Middle East.
On July 12, Hezbollah attacked Israel and kidnapped two soldiers in a cross-border raid. Israel responded by launching air, ground, and naval offences. As we heard from the minister, four days later Canada signed a ceasefire request--and then again ten days later. The member is shaking his head no, but I'm not quite sure what his motives are.
We have a motion from Madame Lalonde, and now we're speaking to an amendment to that. I think the amendment is in order and strongly shares Canada's commitment. We're strongly condemning the launching of Hezbollah's rockets into Israel--that's what started this. It calls on Israel to exercise the utmost restraint. We need to be part of the solution, stop playing games, and hear from the witnesses as soon as possible.
Thank you.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Thank you very much again.
I'll respond to a couple of the items raised by members of the opposition in the committee.
Firstly, Madam Mourani asked what is our political objective with regard to Lebanon. It's very simple. We want to see a stable, long-term peace in the region. Secondly, we want to see a strong Lebanese government that's sovereign over its entire territory. Thirdly, related to that—and the fact that these events have unfolded underlines why it is so important—we want to see the United Nations resolution calling for the disarming and disbandment of Hezbollah within southern Lebanon implemented. Fourthly, we want to see that a sovereign, democratic Israel is recognized and permitted to exist, which right now Hezbollah is committed to eliminating from the face of the Earth, as we heard.
So if you want to know what our objectives are, those are what they are. You will see that if these had been carried out—if there was a recognition of Israel's right to exist, if Hezbollah disbanded, and if you had a strong Lebanese government in place—none of what has unfolded today would be occurring. If those two resolutions from the United Nations Security Council had been implemented, we wouldn't have this conflict, and we wouldn't have this meeting.
So if you ask what our political objective is, it's to do the same thing as the international community has called for: to achieve that stable peace in Lebanon, to have Hezbollah disarmed, to have Israel's right to exist recognized. To me, that is not an unreasonable objective; it's practical and consistent. We're talking about a Security Council resolution that any one of the five major powers, the veto-wielding powers, could have vetoed, but they didn't. It's a broadly held objective recognized by all. So our objectives are not isolated, they're not narrow, they're objectives shared by most in the international realm.
In discussing it further, Madam Mourani said that we can't resolve conflict without dialogue. The way you resolve conflict is through dialogue. That's just dripped with irony from someone who voted to shut down dialogue today. We're supposed to be an example of how to resolve conflict, and she voted.... She says we do it through dialogue, but God forbid we have dialogue here. God forbid we actually hear from witnesses who have something to offer.
So I found it ironic and inconsistent. You won't see us being inconsistent on this side. Had we heard from witnesses, I think it would have enriched the quality of the debate we would have had. It would have been less partisan. It would have been a more reasoned debate, and one not aimed at scoring political points.
Again we see the desire for political points in this discussion of ceasefire. I think Mr. Warawa from Langley put it very well. We had a call for a ceasefire in this motion, Mr. Alghabra, but I guess you didn't read it. We referenced the G8 declaration. Similarly, the declaration of the parties at the peace talks in Rome called for a ceasefire.
Canada's been clear about that. I don't think there's any ambiguity there. Those two calls have been made, and guess what? There's no ceasefire. That's unfortunate, but it points out the difference between words and real power, the ability to influence things. It takes more than words, and it takes more than grandstanding; it takes a lot of hard work. We hope that hard work and dialogue will happen, and we will work towards that peace. But the hard work has to move towards the political objective I refer to: a stable, long-lasting peace in the area.
The Lebanese government didn't want an armed Hezbollah. They want them out; they want to be able assert sovereignty over their own country. Obviously if that had happened, you wouldn't have the ruins that exist there right now.
I don't think that's funny, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj; I think that's the truth. If Hezbollah were not in place to commit incursions into, and invade, Israel, would there be a conflict right now in Lebanon?
Israel had withdrawn—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Those sorts of gratuitous comments are totally out of place. I find nothing humorous about this.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative