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.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You are amending the motion, saying that you can do whatever you want with it. Before this is voted on, we have to have a registered vote.
We must proceed to vote.
Now you have me speaking English!
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, before it's voted on, Madam Lalonde, we have to have a debate.
I have the amendment. We will debate the amendment, vote on the amendment, and then vote on the main motion.
Dr. Martin wrote this. I'll either need the clerk to read it or a pharmacist.
Okay, I'm going to ask our clerk to read the amendment to the motion.
Could I have order?
4:35 p.m.
The Clerk
The amendment is that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “Given” and replacing them with:
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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
First, Ms. Crandall, you could be a pharmacist if you weren't a clerk. Thank you.
Madam Lalonde has a motion here with many fine points. It's a very extensive motion that requires a great deal of thought because it involves many items in a complicated area of the world. We just received this a couple of days ago. To do it justice requires a great deal of thought and debate, and a lot of our input into this particular motion.
I think there is an area of agreement, regardless of what party you're involved in, to understand that we've heard here today of the humanitarian catastrophe taking place in south Lebanon and the broader implications, regarding where this leads for the security of Israel, Lebanon, the region, and beyond.
The essence of the motion calls for an immediate ceasefire, which the government has not called for. No matter what we've heard of Mr. Van Loan's amendment, if you read it very carefully, it did not involve a call by the Government of Canada for an immediate ceasefire, which is absolutely essential in order for civilians who want to leave, to leave; in order for humanitarian aid to get into the area now; and in order for there to be a cessation of hostilities, so that lives will be saved. If this does not happen, there will be a further series of casualties, primarily on the part of civilians, and a large part of those will be children.
Secondly, the security of all countries in the region will be compromised if this ceasefire does not go through. That includes the security of Lebanon, Israel, and all the countries in the region. This particular motion is essential as a first step to being able to put some element of calmness into the region, which desperately needs it now.
Notwithstanding the other points in Madam Lalonde's motion—many of which are very good—we believe passing this motion by our committee now would give very clear guidance to the Government of Canada to do the one thing that is essential for saving lives on the ground now. That is the reason and essence of the amendment, and why it was put forth, because it is in the area of agreement that regardless of where one falls on this particular issue, it is something we should support as an act of basic humanity.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
No, I cannot chair the proceedings because I don't want to give up my right to speak.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think the amendment is progress in terms of simplifying, and there are many points in the larger motion that are problematic and that we object to. Certainly we all want to see efforts towards peace succeed, and we want to see a ceasefire and cessation of violence.
What's also important is that the ceasefire be sustainable, so that we can rely on it and it will be enduring, so that it's a ceasefire that brings real stability—not something that actually encourages parties to take advantage of the opportunity to rearm, reposition, and so on. I think it's very important that any peace, any ceasefire that's arrived at, be sustainable.
For that reason, while I think the motion is a step forward, positive, and the sentiment is good, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment by inserting, after the word “ceasefire”, the words “that is sustainable”. I think that captures the sentiment, but also ensures that we are dealing with a call for an immediate ceasefire that is sustainable--one we can be certain will bring lasting peace to the area, one on which civilians can rely, and one on which the parties can rely to help all.
That's the motion I move, an amendment to the amendment, to insert, after the word “ceasefire”, the words “that is sustainable”.
I believe Mr. Obhrai is seconding that.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Acting Chair Liberal Albina Guarnieri
Thank you.
We will proceed to debate on the subamendment.
Madam McDonough.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I wonder if I could just indulge the committee and you, as chair, for a moment.
I think the single most important thing that needs to come out of this committee today is a call for immediate ceasefire. What has been put forward in an amendment is intended to convey exactly the opposite message of what is intended in the motion itself. Therefore, I'm asking how that could even be sustained by the chair as an allowable amendment.
It seems clear to me that it's intended to have exactly the opposite intent. In other words, no, there wouldn't be an immediate ceasefire, because all the talk we've heard from government members has argued against an immediate ceasefire, in contravention of most of the world, including the United Nations. Even Tony Blair was out there clearly indicating that the circumstances, which have happened since the G8, have been so severe, so unacceptable, and so horrendous for innocent civilians and unarmed UN observers that we have to go to an immediate ceasefire.
At the very least, we need clarification of the intention behind this, whether it is in fact to prevent the call to our government to demand an immediate ceasefire.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
On the contrary, if my desire was to oppose it, I would move that we amend it by taking out the word “immediate”. Instead, what I've done is insert qualities as to the type of ceasefire we want: one that's meaningful, one that is sustainable.
The notion is that you want a ceasefire that actually is a ceasefire, one that parties can rely on. We've already had a 48-hour ceasefire of aerial bombardment. There already was a partial ceasefire. But that's the problem with saying “an immediate ceasefire”. If we've already had one that was of no effect, we need to have an immediate ceasefire that is sustainable. I don't think anybody wants a ceasefire that isn't. So for that reason, I think it's entirely consistent. It simply states that we want the ceasefire to be sustainable, and I don't see how that is inconsistent in any way.
I think all of us would like to see that happen immediately, and I'm happy to call for it. Perhaps the opposition doesn't want the ceasefire to be sustainable, but I think it's fairly reasonable that you would want it to be sustainable. So I would hope you'd support the subamendment.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm going to break from the speaking order, because we have a proposed subamendment to that amendment.
I have one question for you, Mr. Martin. Is that acceptable to you?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chair, as I said before—and I don't want to engage in repetition—what Canadians are looking to us to do here as parliamentarians is to speak as clearly as possible in support of an immediate ceasefire. I also think what the rest of the world hopes they can hear from Canada is leadership around calling for an immediate ceasefire. Even if one accepts only the narrow terms in which earlier today we heard the foreign affairs minister address the question of whose interests we bear major responsibility for—those of Canadians who want to evacuate Lebanon—then we would have to agree to an immediate ceasefire if we were serious about creating safe passage.
I think Canadians want us to go beyond that, and the world hopes that Canada would want to go beyond that, and recognize that the UN Charter provides that the life of every citizen on Earth is equivalent and of equal importance to the life of every other citizen on Earth. Therefore, a ceasefire is necessary, not just to evacuate Canadians but to ensure that other civilians who are being killed in Israel, Lebanon, and Palestine will be protected as well. That's only going to happen with a ceasefire. We know that; we see that. Everyday the evidence mounts that this is the case.
So yesterday I submitted a motion that basically spoke directly to the need to do this. I absolutely respect the decision the clerk made to say that the full 24-hour notice was necessary before it could come forward to the committee today. But it's clear that we have to come out of this committee meeting today with a ceasefire.
I have to say I'm very reluctant to accept the suggestion that was made here that, no, this is not the opposite of the intention in which we called for an immediate ceasefire. But I think that if members on the government side are speaking honestly, fairly, and directly, and it is their intention to ensure not just that a motion goes through here calling for an immediate ceasefire, but that the call to the government will be followed up with a report from this committee to demand that the government agree to make the call for an immediate ceasefire.... If they won't do so, what needs to follow is that Parliament be recalled to address this crisis of inaction, equivocation, and qualification around calling for an immediate ceasefire.
I've heard from one member that the additional suggested words are not intended to be an equivocation or a qualification, but it is an immediate ceasefire that is called for. The intent of this is for the government to act on that. I would further advocate that we express ourselves on the issue of whether, in the event of the government not responding to the urging of this committee to call for an immediate ceasefire, Parliament be recalled to express its opinion on this issue and to consider what action should follow.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make two points and I'm speaking here to our clerks.
Earlier, when this motion was rejected out of hand, I responded by saying that I wanted a vote to determine whether or not the amendment was in order. I won't vote against a ceasefire, since my motion called for one. However, I haven't had an opportunity -- and neither has the committee - to debate whether or not the amendment, which strikes down the substance of my motion and reintroduces it as an amendment, is in fact in order. I have considerable experience chairing meetings and I find that we're proceeding here in a highly irregular manner.
As for the substance of the question, we cannot say, Ms. McDonough, that a sustainable ceasefire is not a condition. When the two groups of countries confronted one another, they did so on the basis of certain conditions and in response to the immediate nature of the situation. When we say that a ceasefire will be declared on condition that it's a lasting ceasefire, we're agreeing to do what has to be done to achieve a lasting ceasefire. Upon further reflection, a lasting ceasefire really boils down to a treaty. However, even treaties have been violated. Lebanon has been invaded six times between 1982 and 2006. Yet, each time, I assume that a lasting ceasefire had been declared.
My motion, which you have dispensed with and which Keith Martin also wants to retain, calls for an immediate ceasefire without any conditions that might alter the picture in six months' time. A lasting ceasefire implies that certain conditions have been stated. Either we have conditions, or we do not.
As far as I'm concerned, the sub-amendment to an amendment to which I'm opposed makes an immediate ceasefire nonsensical and should therefore be soundly defeated.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madam Lalonde.
We're going to continue.
I won't give commentary on it, but when we do have amendments on these longer motions, if you get one little line that someone disagrees with, they have the opportunity to bring forward an amendment, and that's what we're seeing here.
Mr. Martin, you were up next.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
That's fine. Ms. McDonough made the same points as I was going to make.
