Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, members, for those questions. We're trying to keep it within the five minutes, and we're way over here.

Mr. Minister, just take your time to answer Mr. Martin and Madam Guarnieri.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'll do my level best. I don't think I could accurately answer all of those questions in five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You don't have five minutes. There are five minutes for the questions and the answers.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

As far as there being bombardment of a civilian airport is concerned, we were not consulted, nor did we advocate the removal of the only means of air transport out of the country of Lebanon. The Prime Minister was certainly not talking specifically of that act when he made the statement early in this crisis.

Am I satisfied that we have done and continue to do everything possible to assist in the evacuation and removal of Canadian citizens who have contacted us, or whom we have contacted, and expressed a desire to leave? Yes, and we'll continue to do so through every means possible when roads become more secure and that airport is eventually repaired, which we hope will be soon. I think planes have now landed there offering humanitarian relief, which is a positive sign that some of those runways are open. I think you will see Canada's participation in the humanitarian relief and reconstruction begin right away.

Do I think that bombardment is a path to peace? Certainly not. This human tragedy cannot be lost on anyone who has a drop of the milk of human kindness. This has been one of the most horrific things I have seen in my lifetime: the suffering that Mr. Martin has described and all of us have borne witness to, either through the eyes of the victims who have recited their stories or the depictions we've seen on our national broadcasts. No one with a heart or soul can be immune from being affected by this and those graphic pictures.

How do I define peace in Lebanon? It's certainly the cessation of violence, and the immediate attention of the world and the international community to come to their rescue and make significant contributions to the rehabilitation of their entire country. The sad tragedy that exacerbates or even doubles this crisis is that Lebanon was well on its way. Beirut in particular was one of the most vibrant cities not only in the region but in the world, and I think many of you who have been to that region would affirm that.

How do we implement Resolution 1559? This seems to have escaped the international community generally. As you know, it calls for the securing of all of the borders and the sovereign exercise of democracy over the entire nation, including the south. It also calls for the disarmament of all military groups, which includes Hezbollah. Why has that not happened? That is a question for everyone--for the UN in particular, where this resolution emanated.

So peace in the Middle East, peace in Lebanon, will occur when people adhere to those international commitments; when the international community, through collaborative efforts, is finally able to bring about an end to the violence. Simply put, that is my definition of what has to occur here. It has to occur quickly, and it has to occur inside Lebanon.

Mr. Martin asked a number of questions about the timing of our call for a ceasefire. As a participant at the G8, I hearken back to that statement of July 16, which was four days into the conflict:

The most urgent priority is to create conditions for a cessation of violence that will be sustainable and lay the foundation for a more permanent solution. This, in our judgment, requires: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; An end to the shelling of Israeli territory; An end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; The release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.

This applies to both sides. An adherence by Hezbollah and Israel to those conditions will be a ceasefire and a cessation of violence.

The Rome statement, of which we are a signatory, says:

The Rome conference participants expressed their determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities. The cease-fire must be lasting, permanent and sustainable.

That statement, of which Canada is a signatory, is dated July 26.

On July 16, and 10 days later on July 26, Canada called for a ceasefire, along with our international partners.

What do I think Canada's role going forward is going to be? I think we can continue to be a reasoned participant in these discussions at high levels both at the UN and elsewhere, at whatever meetings take place around the most important questions, which I think both of you alluded to, which are these: What will an international force look like? Who will lead that force? What will its mandate be? What will be the timing of its entry into Lebanon? And what will its role be once inside Lebanon?

One of the suggestions I've made is that this force should secure the borders, with the active participation and involvement of the Lebanese army, to cut off the supply lines to Hezbollah to ensure that no further rockets munitions are going to be brought in, either through the ports or through the border with Syria. That, among other efforts, is again part of the larger participation that isn't a military solution, but it's part of an international peacemaking exercise that has to occur.

What Canada's role might be in that international intervention is yet to be determined, because the mandate has not been set. That, I believe, is the most primary, principled, and urgent task that the UN has before it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, Minister MacKay.

The last question, I think--

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I have one final point.

With respect to the stabilization of the country and the humanitarian relief, I think Canada can play a leading role in that regard, and this includes, of course, emphasis on the protection of civilians and the core element of a mandate of the force that will enter Lebanon, which I think is going to be very much akin to some of the humanitarian relief efforts in which Canada has a great deal of expertise.

I'm not saying here today that we are making specific commitments as yet, but we are certainly going to be participants in what the mandate will be. I think we would be certainly negligent if we were not at the table and being informed of what this international force is going to look like, what its mandate will be, and when it can begin its important work, particularly when it comes to the protection of civilians now and the humanitarian relief that is needed immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

A very quick question, Mr. Goldring. Just a very quick question.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here today.

As a primary purpose of this meeting here was to discuss the evacuation, I personally want to add my congratulations to your department and to the public servants who worked on this. I think all of us had a chance to interact, whether phoning for particular people to try to locate them, and the cooperation and involvement from the departments involved was just marvellous given the circumstances that were existing at the time.

I wanted to ask one question. With the number of ships that Canada had arranged for to evacuate personnel, were there other ships that were arranged for by other Canadian groups or organizations that might have been there to be able to assist? Were there other Canadian groups or organizations that might have hired ships there too, or were they all organized by the Canadian government?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I'm going to defer to Mr. Boehm, who was the individual, along with Mr. Fox and other leaders in this exercise, who made arrangements for the leasing of ships, as well as the important second component, which was the leasing of airplanes to bring Canadians back directly to Canada.

In all, there were 32 ferry passages--31 out of Beirut and one out of Tyre--and all individuals were processed either through Cyprus or Mersin, Turkey.

We had seven contracts signed for sea transportation, ten contracts for air transportation. There were 52 flights back to Canada--31 from Cyprus, 21 from Turkey. There were 425 emergency passports issued in this period, which again required a great deal of person-hours to process that exercise. A total of 12,555 evacuees have now safely returned to Canada.

Your question about specifics of who we were competing with and how these contracts were arrived at, I think, can be best answered by Mr. Boehm. But there was competition--fierce competition--bidding, in fact, for the use of the limited number of ships that were available in both Turkey and Cyprus for this exercise.

Mr. Boehm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Boehm, go ahead, please, very quickly.

[Peter Boehm, Assistant Deputy Minister, North America (and Consular Affairs), Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Goldring, as part of our evacuation and contingency planning, we had contacts already with various shipping companies, and with the charter airlines as well, and it was a matter of activating them. So when we contracted ships, we had to go through brokers. There were many brokers who were acting for the shipping owners. And we did that obviously by contacting them. They were, of course, being contacted by other countries as well.

To the greatest extent possible, we were also dealing with the heads of task forces of the other countries to ensure that we could develop as smooth as possible an operation. And that is why we ended up taking some Australians, a fair number of Americans, etc., and it went the other way as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Lalonde, go ahead, please, very quickly.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us here today. However, before you leave, since we haven't exhausted the subject, I'd like to ask you a question.

First of all, what is your take on the fact that in Israel -- I regularly read the newspaper Ha'aretz -- “a Hezbollah victory” is seen as having fairly dramatic consequences for the Middle East? Furthermore, Israel, a country reputed -- and I believe it's true -- to have the most efficient intelligence service, indeed probably more efficient that the US intelligence service -- has attacked Lebanon, and not Hezbollah, with the kind of force that the vast majority of observers have deemed exaggerated and excessive. Hasn't Israel given Hezbollah, which Lebanon was in the process of demilitarizing, the opportunity to demonstrate that it is in fact defending Lebanon?

Mr. Minister, the situation today is far more complex than it was prior to the onset of hostilities. I'll leave you with that. However, the situation does warrant some reflection, because I'm deeply concerned about your comments regarding a permanent and sustainable ceasefire, in light of what's happening in the region.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Lalonde. It's very interesting to see you present a reasonable position.

I'm not going to comment on what information was or wasn't available to the Israeli intelligence or how they telegraphed their moves to Hezbollah. I think the important issue is the necessity on the part of the Government of Israel and its military to play an active role now in securing its own borders and its own national security force. Hezbollah have been acting, as I mentioned earlier, like a cancer. It has a political wing, members of which are representatives elected to the parliament, and it has that democratic outlet to express its desires for such things as the Shebaa Farms, mentioned by Mr. Martin, and other outstanding issues. That one in particular appears to be one of the greatest motivations it has for its very existence.

That does not in any way, shape, or form justify the indiscriminate rocket attacks that have gone on literally since the withdrawal of Israel from the country of Lebanon and the withdrawal, by the way, from Syria. Lebanon was well on its way when Hezbollah commenced this unprovoked attack on Israel. And so, if there is any wisdom in all of this, clearly it is going to involve support for the Government of Lebanon to finally bring about the actual implementation of Resolution 1559 along with several other interconnected resolutions from the United Nations and the resolution of the land dispute over Shebaa Farms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame McDonough, do you have a very quick question?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'll be very brief.

I'm sure the minister will be aware that the support for Hezbollah in Lebanon has dramatically increased as a result of the bombing of innocent civilians and massive destruction of infrastructure and the threat that still hangs over their heads. Does the minister understand that continuing on that military path is bound to increase and is already showing signs of increasing the support for the other side in this hostility? And in view of the overwhelming evidence of this, why will he not refrain from constantly feeding and fuelling that kind of process?

And secondly, can the minister indicate whether Canada will participate in a military presence —the more immediate the better—to maintain that ceasefire, and if so, in what way and to what extent?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Firstly, I'm not advocating violence; I'm not advocating further military action, which you've extrapolated as the reason for greater support for Hezbollah. I don't follow that logic.

Canada has consistently looked for ways to make a positive contribution to this process and will continue to do so at every available opportunity, at every forum. We support the establishment of this multinational force; that much is clear. That's been very much the preoccupation of much of the discussion around what can be contributed to lead to the ceasefire and to make it lasting, to make it durable.

Canada, as you know, is already heavily committed in its operations in Afghanistan; we have other commitments to Haiti; we are increasingly looking at the contribution that we can make in Africa, in Sudan. There has been no request for Canada to participate militarily in this international force that is quantifiable. There has been no mandate set for the international force. There has been no decision taken as to what other countries will participate. Those are all questions that require answers before we could even contemplate what role we might play.

In the meantime, I think and I believe, we have demonstrated our commitment already to the humanitarian effort, to the diplomatic effort, and to certainly be participants in the discussion around what the mandate of the international force should be: the timing; what it will be comprised of; what countries will and will not participate; what role NATO might play, if any. Those are all big, important questions on which the United Nations security force and, I suspect, a group of countries that will include Canada will focus their attention now.

As I mentioned earlier, I think you would expect no less than for Canada to be at the table and to help influence, in whatever constructive and positive way we can, what that multinational force should look like and what its role should be in bringing about a lasting, durable peace in Lebanon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We want to thank you for taking the time today to come on this very important issue. Not just Canadians but the world is gripped with what's happening in the Middle East, and many people, as you suggested, understand very well that loved ones and friends were trapped there in Lebanon. Thank you for coming and explaining Canada's role in the evacuation process, and thank you for taking the extra time.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I want to express my thanks to you, to my parliamentary colleagues, for their informed, compassionate, and important interventions. I commit to working with this committee and with all of you as we go forward. Any and all information about the location—again, I reiterate—of citizens inside Lebanon in need of our help is appreciated. Please forward it to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll do that.

Thank you very much. We will now suspend and we will come back at one o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), we will resume this morning's meeting, requested by four members of the committee, in relation to the current Middle East crisis and the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon.

We are pleased to have with us here today the Canadian International Development Agency. They will give us their presentation, please.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, this morning we had committee business in the order of the day, and there is none this afternoon. I move that before hearing from the CIDA officials, we go to committee business.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Seconded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

So we have a motion that we go to committee business.

Mr. Van Loan.

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

I don't understand why we would do that right now. We're at a point where we want to hear from some witnesses. This meeting was not called by the government; it was called by representatives of all three opposition parties to, first and foremost, hear and take evidence--in the words of Madame Lalonde--on the efforts of the Canadian government with regard to the evacuation. So why would we proceed to committee business before we have heard the witnesses? I find that extraordinary. I think we should hear them.

Secondly, we have a very real concern. We have before us a number of witnesses from CIDA whose time is very valuable right now. They are working on the humanitarian efforts in Lebanon to ensure that humanitarian aid gets delivered and that we help with the crisis there. They've already been kind enough to indulge the committee and wait until one o'clock to deliver their evidence and be away from their other work. If we're going to have some strange procedural tactic right now that requires them to wait, we are going to have a direct impact as a committee on their ability to carry out their work. We are interrupting their work in delivering that humanitarian aid.

So as the agenda calls for and Madame Lalonde's letter requested, I would like us to go straight to hearing evidence on the Canadian humanitarian efforts right now. It's beyond me why we would abandon that through some kind of strange procedural tactic, interrupt their work, and keep them from their work even longer.