Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

He's reading it into the motion. He's making an amendment.

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

Yes, but I want to get a copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

One moment here.

Mr. Patry, you've chaired this committee before and you understand that amendments can come out of committee. They can be made just before and they can be read. What Mr. Van Loan is about to do is to read the amendment to the motion, and the clerk will have record of it and give it back to you.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with reference toward what Mr. Patry has said, I would like to go on the record as saying that the letter we received from Madam Lalonde was only in French and not in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, that is not a point of order. That letter was given and was all that was requested, and it did not have to be in both official languages. Mr. Obhrai, that is not a point of order.

We are back to Mr. Van Loan. Will you read the amendment into the record.

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

If I may, I will read the amendment and thus make it verbally. And you will all have a copy for your own benefit.

I move that the motion be amended by removing all the words after “given”, in line one, and substituting the following:

Given the strong bonds of friendship that unite Canada with Lebanon and given that it is committed to its security;

Given that of all Western countries Canada had the largest number of nationals in Lebanon at the outbreak of hostilities;

Given that Canada is a long-standing friend of Israel, that it actively supported its creation, and that it is also committed to its security;

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs:

Congratulates the Government of Canada for the successful evacuation of over 13,000 Canadians from Lebanon;

Calls on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to conduct a review of the procedures utilized to carry out the evacuation so that the successful principles can be applied to planning for future similar emergency contingencies that may arise;

Offers its sincere condolences to the families of Canadians and all others who have died during the recent crisis in the Middle East;

Recognizes that Israel was attacked on its territory by Hezbollah unprovoked, and that Israel, as a sovereign democracy, has a right to defend itself;

Strongly condemns the launching of Hezbollah rockets into Israel;

Calls upon Israel to exercise the utmost restraint in its military actions and take all possible measures to protect civilian lives and infrastructure;

Calls on the Government of Canada to continue to support the Government of Lebanon and to support its efforts to peacefully disarm the militia;

Supports the G8 summit declaration, which emphasizes the importance of a ceasefire that is sustainable and emphasizes the importance of working towards a permanent solution.

That is the amendment, and I understand that is seconded by Mr. Casey.

If I may, I will continue by speaking to the motion.

I think what we have here is something that is shorn of some of the rhetoric, which I think is a little one-sided, and more accurately reflects Canada's traditional position. Canada has strongly supported the establishment of the new government in Lebanon and welcomed the departure of the Syrian troops that took place a couple of years ago, which helped to allow the sovereign government to begin to reassert its authority. We very much support the United Nations resolutions 1559 and, I believe, 1680, both of which call for the disarmament and disbanding of Hezbollah.

I remind everyone, in particular the members of the Liberal Party who, as a government, listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.... I believe all of us around this table, I hope all parties, support those United Nations Security Council resolutions that call for Hezbollah to be disarmed and disbanded. It's international law that I believe this government strongly supports. I believe all parties support that. I certainly hope that all parties around the table support it. Mr. McTeague may not support the disarming and disbanding of Hezbollah, but I believe most other Liberals do.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, again Mr. Van Loan is attempting to suggest other members are taking a position before we come forth or respond to his resolution or his amendment.

For the record, Mr. Chair, he has responded to a comment along the lines that all resolutions of the United Nations, including those of 1967 and 1973, must be respected, which he has conspicuously ignored in his commentary and diatribe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

I ask the committee to, in a way, cool down a little, all sides, and let's listen. Part of the problem here is that when someone is speaking and everyone else is heckling it's disruptive and causes grief down the road for all parties. Let's give the courtesy.

Continue, Mr. Van Loan.

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

If I could. Thank you.

I think it's important to recognize Canada's special relationship with Israel. It is a special relationship. In the wake of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, Canada strongly supported the establishment of the Israeli state. It is an existence that must be defended and must be supported. Israel is a clear paragon as a democracy in the Middle East—something that, sadly, is more lacking than we would like to be the case.

But what's more, the creation of that state was the result of one of the greatest horrors mankind has witnessed, and that was the Holocaust: the death of six million Jews, the act of genocide, the effort by a brutal dictator to destroy an entire population. The world at that time recognized the importance of establishing an Israeli state, of standing with it, and of protecting its right to exist.

It's that very right to exist that Hezbollah refuses to acknowledge. Hezbollah is committed to eliminating Israel from the face of the earth. That's one of the reasons Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist group by Canada and recognized as such by many in the international community. That's why the United Nations resolution calls for its disbanding and disarmament, in part.

Canada has a long history. We contributed to and supported the creation of Israel and we have an obligation to continue that support and recognize their right to sovereignty and self-defence today.

In terms of the matter of the evacuation, I think we heard very good evidence, and I don't think too many members have disagreed that it was a success. Over 13,000 people were able to get out alive, were able to get out without mishap. There was some discomfort, some inconvenience, perhaps, but considering the remarkable numbers involved, the unprecedented nature of it—almost the same number the United States had to evacuate, for a country one-tenth the size and with a fraction of the resources, certainly a fraction of the resources in the region—we were able to do it in quick order. It's a happy story; it's a good story; it's something Canadians are proud of.

I think Canadians are proud of the role they've played on the world stage. They're proud of the principled position and they're proud of the efforts the Canadian government makes to defend and protect them around the world, even when doing it is very difficult. I think it's appropriate that we do this.

But also, considering the unprecedented nature of this.... This was an evacuation unlike any other before, and as such a lot of improvisation occurred on the go, from the Prime Minister, through the minister, through all the officials in the various departments, all the people—the front line workers, the people who took time off vacation.... A lot of innovation occurred. A lot of things were done differently than usual, and it worked. That's a remarkable testimony to the strength of Canada, the strength of our institutions, the strength of our officials in Foreign Affairs, of our consular staff of our embassies around the world, of the Department of National Defence staff who assisted, the Immigration officials who assisted, the Border Services officials who assisted.

Compared with other countries, we did a remarkable job of returning those folks to Canada, and for that we can be very proud. I think we should look at how that improvisation took place and what lessons can be drawn from its successes.

That's what this motion seeks to do in asking the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to conduct this kind of review, so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel the next time around. There are some good lessons to draw on and that we can build on, should—God forbid—a similar situation occur elsewhere in the world, and sadly these things happen all too often.

Further on, we discuss condolences and regrets for those who have died, Canadians and all others. Let's be perfectly clear. Canada, the Canadian government, deplores the loss of life and is saddened by it. We would like to see it come to an end, and that's why we have reference to the G8 summit declaration, which Canada was an early signatory to, calling for a ceasefire in this matter so that we can restore peace in that area.

But we also have to recognize that all parties do not come to this with equally clean hands. Hezbollah represents an aggressor. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. There is not moral equivalency between Hezbollah and Israel. Canada should not be neutral between the two. Canada will stand firmly and should stand firmly on the side of a free, democratic Israel. We should stand against a terrorist group whose tactics, as Mr. Alghabra just noted, result in the death of civilians. Their stated aim is to target civilian installations and harm civilians.

You raised a concern about civilians. We are on the side of innocent civilians--the innocent civilians who are the victims of Hezbollah rockets, and the innocent civilians who are used as human shields by Hezbollah. Those innocent civilians are the real victims in this war, and they are the victims, first and foremost, of Hezbollah. For that reason, we do condemn those actions by Hezbollah.

Obviously we want to see restraint in Israel's response, hence we urge that. We recognize their right to defend themselves, but it must be done in such a fashion that seeks to minimize the loss of human life and avoid undue harm to infrastructure wherever possible.

The United Nations has at least twice called for Hezbollah to be disarmed. Sadly, that has not happened. We want to see the Government of Lebanon supported. We hope that any kind of lasting force can be robust in terms of peace and can work towards the disarming and disbandment of Hezbollah. That is the only way you're going to get long-term stability and security for the Lebanese government, for the Lebanese country. That's what we want to see.

So in this motion I think we capture a position that represents Canada's proud humanitarian, multilateral, and peaceful orientation, but also recognizes that democracy, freedom, and human rights matter; that these are important values that we will defend, and we will assert ourselves in the international sphere to do that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present this amendment and speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Van Loan.

Mr. Patry.

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

I really feel that was not an amendment; it was probably a new motion, in a sense. But even if it's not in both official languages, we should keep it as it is right now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I again want to state what my colleague just said, that when I came here, it was to hear about Canada's efforts in evacuation and humanitarian efforts, as well as the crisis in Lebanon, in the Middle East. That was the intent of the motion; that was the whole idea for which we came here.

Accordingly, we called in the witnesses, people who are engaged in humanitarian efforts, to understand what challenges they were facing, what they were going to do, and what would be the future intention of CIDA in Lebanon, where the majority of the devastation has taken effect. They had this opportunity.

Then we were going to listen to what I call a very strong party, and that is the Lebanese diaspora who are over here in Canada. If time permitted and if the opposition wasn't happy, we could have carried on. However, as my colleague said, we have stopped all these things here to pass a motion that actually deals with those things.

You know, if he had listened to all these witnesses who would have come, we would have put in a working solution, a working motion, taking what they said into account in this. But now that is not what is happening. What is happening is that the whole thing has turned into a football.

I know Madame Lalonde very well. I've worked with her in the past. She alluded to a report that dealt with the relationship of Canada with the Muslim world, and she and I were participants in that. We went around the world, we studied the report, and we made those recommendations alluding to this, to see how Canada can best strengthen relationships with the Muslim world. So we have all these things that we did. Nevertheless, we need to know what has taken place now in the crisis, on humanitarian issues out there.

At the time we did that report that you allude to, Madame Lalonde, one of the strongest recommendations from the report was that we engage with the Muslim community in here. Now, following the civil war in Lebanon and the devastation, we have a huge Lebanese community living in Canada--in Montreal, in Ottawa, and in my riding as well.

I can tell you that one of the largest ethnic groups that live in my riding is the Lebanese community. Therefore, when this crisis took place, they immediately contacted me and I contacted them for a dialogue. It is important that a dialogue take place with them, because they are the players. Their loved ones are there. So that is what I alluded to, the fact that Peter MacKay, the honourable minister, on my invitation, came to Calgary to listen to them, not to attend the Calgary Stampede.

You see, Mr. Chair, this is the problem with people who come from Toronto, MPs who sit over there and pass judgment as if to say Calgary does not exist and Calgary's people are not important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, just speak to the motion.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Order.

I am speaking to the motion. These are important issues. It's part of the amendment. Over there, they're asking for the foreign policy and I'm alluding to that.

So it is important that the Lebanese diaspora of Canada also be involved, which is what we did--however, over there, that is not taken into account.

What is interesting is that the same diaspora--and I'm sure the Liberal members aren't interested in listening to that--the members of the Lebanese community, said they were also fed up with Hezbollah. They also wanted Hezbollah to be reined in. That was the message we got.

Of course, the biggest concern they had was the devastation that was taking place in Lebanon, the country that was rebuilding itself, with a fragile democracy. That was the concern they had, and they wanted to know what Canada was going to do. Therefore, the humanitarian assistance program and all those things that Canada and this government is committed to give are to address what they want. And I'm sure we will work with the diaspora community to ensure that Lebanon is quickly back on its feet.

As for the other issues, the motion we have put forward addresses the major concern of how to get a lasting peace in the Middle East. We need a sustainable peace.

Mr. McTeague, on the other side, and others have alluded to the resolutions that have come from the United Nations. How many resolutions have come from the United Nations? They keep coming, but have they ever achieved a long-term solution? They haven't. Why? There are players in there who do not want a solution to that crisis. There are players in there, and one of them is Hezbollah, who do not want this because it is not politically expedient for them. So it is natural that we condemn that and look for ways in which a sustainable ceasefire can be achieved. This motion talks about that and also calls on Israel to restrain itself and avoid hitting....

Our own soldiers have died, our own people have died, and this is a terrible tragedy. Canadians have lost lives out there.

The point of the matter is that it is important we all work together with all the international players to ensure a sustainable peace. Madame Lalonde's motion also talks about there being no peace in the region without a global and negotiated settlement on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. You yourself have said there won't be any ceasefire unless there is a negotiated settlement on that issue. Therefore, it's time to come and bring all the players down.

Unfortunately, this war has started, so let's seize this opportunity and look for a long-term solution. That is what the Lebanese community also wants. That is what most peaceful people in that region want. They're tired of the war. It's time for us to join that not-so-silent voice of people seeking peace. Let's get a lasting peace for that region.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Just before we continue, I remind you on this side that the official opposition has four members. Whether it's comments, heckling, or whatever, let's try to keep it down. I'll certainly recognize those people who are members of this committee.

Madam Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Madame Lalonde's motion has some constructive aims, specifically an immediate ceasefire and an end to bombing campaigns that put civilians at unnecessary risk, but I see three areas that need to change.

First, there is no call for an international force, so there is no plan for Canada to actively participate in peace. Second, it suggests that Canada's international reputation has been destroyed. Though I agree it is imperiled, that it has been destroyed is not believable or correct. Third, it condemns both sides in the conflict, and I don't see any constructive value in condemnation unless our goal is to inflame the situation and be ignored by all sides.

So I believe we should delete all condemnation language and weigh in constructively as a voice for a ceasefire from a nation that wants to actively participate in achieving peace. I wonder if the mover of the amendment would consider deleting all the self-congratulatory language and call for an immediate and permanent halt to attacks by either party where the primary victims are civilians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to stay with the speaking order, but I would ask Mr. Van Loan, who is the mover of the amendment, to keep that question in order. You'll be up fairly soon.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I believe that this motion introduced by the opposition kind of highlights what some of the concerns were before. What it really does is put us in a position of having to vote on something without having the full information beforehand.

I agree that our amendment to this corrects some of the inaccuracies of the opposition's motion. For example, it talks about the apparent lack of preparation for evacuation, but I believe it would be impossible to prepare for an evacuation of 16,000 people. This is not something that can be foreseen.

So the motion we've put forward as an amendment clears up some of those characteristics and takes out some of the rhetoric. I believe it should be supported.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Madame Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say that I fully support Ms. Lalonde's motion to the committee. I'd like to come back to a point that was raised either by Mr. Obhrai or by Mr. Van Loan concerning the UN resolutions. In international law, it's important that everyone comply with resolutions of this nature. We could talk about resolutions that Israel has failed to respect. Therefore, there's no one here in a position to preach to anyone else.

Having said that, earlier I listened to the member say that Israel was attacking Hezbollah and that the latter had only itself to blame. I wish to point out that Lebanon is currently under attack, not Hezbollah. Lebanese roads, infrastructures and civilians are being attacked, not Hezbollah. Furthermore, the Lebanese economy is also under attack. The country's economy is driven mainly by tourism and, of course, by the banking industry, Lebanon being the Switzerland of the Middle East.

Moreover, it's shameful to hear people claim that Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, to imply that this is the cause of the Qana attacks. Your government should be ashamed to make this kind of statement which should be factually based, Mr. Van Loan.

Mr. Chairman, is anyone listening, or are they the only ones entitled to speak and to be heard? Could we possibly have some decorum here?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Order, please.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Getting back to Hezbollah and the claim that this organization is using civilians as human shields, it's important to bring some facts to the table and produce some evidence when one makes statements of this nature. It's important to bring some facts to the table to justify the killing of 35 children. Rumours and empty words aren't enough.

Elsewhere, I don't know if you've read about this, but the press reported that Israel was launching illegal phosphorous bombs. This report does raise a number of questions.

Regardless of where these bombs were acquired or whether they were supplied by the United States, when smart bombs are dropped on Lebanon -- can someone explain to me how bombs can be smart if they kill people -- these are not Hezbollah bombs raining down on Lebanon, but rather Israeli bombs, even if they were paid for by the United States.

What disappoints me about this government is that is has taken sides and seems incapable of any political analysis of the situation. That's unfortunate because Ms. Lalonde's motion attempts to creates some balance between the parties involved. It does not take sides. It recognizes that Israel has the right to defend itself and condemns Hezbollah for kidnapping two soldiers. At the same time, however, it condemns Israel for attacking civilians. This is the position that Canada must adopt as a nation with a peacekeeping mission.

Some have sought the comments of displaced persons. Let me explain something to you. No one individual speaks for the Lebanese community, whether in Quebec or in Canada. There are as many organizations as there as Lebanese in Canada and in Quebec. No one person can therefore claim to speak for the entire Lebanese community. Therefore, some caution is in order when people seek to speak to you and give you advice.

Since this government came to power, I've been asking myself questions about Hamas. I had questions even before the current outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon. Who is advising this government? That's what I'd really like to know.

If your advisers are dispensing this kind of advice that sanctions hate, killings and disregard for international law, then they are truly putting Canada is a shameful position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Mourani.

Now we go to Mr. Van Loan.

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

Thank you very much.

I will spend this intervention dealing with responses to some of the issues that have been raised elsewhere. I'll start with Madame Mourani's comments, going from the end, where she spoke about Hamas and asked who is advising this government on our response to Hamas.

Our response on Hamas was very simple. Hamas again is a listed terrorist organization, committed to destroying the State of Israel, committed to seeing it wiped off the face of the Earth. When it was elected to be the government of the Palestinian Authority, Canada, the European Union, and most of the western civilized democratic world all came together with a common position: that this new government must recognize the right of Israel to exist, renounce the use of violence, and adhere to the existing agreements, including the roadmap to peace.

The only way we were going to get a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian question would be to have a two-state solution negotiated properly, and the roadmap to peace and the existing agreements were the way to get there. Asking a terrorist organization to renounce violence and recognize the right of Israel to exist was entirely consistent with that. In fact, that's why that position was adopted by, I think it's fair to say, just about the entire western democratic, free world.

I don't think it's an extreme position to stand against terrorism. I think it's a quite moderate, reasonable, and civilized position to stand against terrorism. That's what Canada is doing, as Canada has always done: stand for freedom and for democracies.

Now, Madame Mourani asked who speaks for Lebanon and said to be careful who speaks for Lebanon or the Lebanese community here. Well, guess what? I guess we'll never know, Ms. Mourani, because you didn't let them speak at this committee. You voted that we won't hear from any. You didn't vote to hear from the people who are already on the list. You didn't vote to add additional witnesses to the list to get a full spectrum, as Mr. Obhrai suggested. No, you voted instead to move to debate this question without hearing from any of them.

In a democracy, we hear from them. So when you caution that we should be careful who we hear from, apparently your caution is to hear from no one, to shut down the ability of people to express themselves. That is shameful. You should be ashamed of the position you took today, not to let anybody—not one member of the Lebanese community in Canada—speak today on this motion; yet we're being asked to make a decision on it.

That's shameful in a democracy. I am saddened by it. It's a sad day for Canada. It's a sad day for democracy. You have been a party to that today.

In terms of bias, there is a suggestion from Madame Mourani that this government has a bias, that we don't have a balanced position between Hezbollah and Israel. Well, I don't think seeking a balance between terrorists and democracies is Canada's foreign policy. This is a listed terrorist organization under Canadian law. The Liberal government, on December 11, 2002, listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

I've gone through the incidents. There are others I didn't go through: the efforts by Hezbollah to recruit people in Singapore to conduct terrorist acts—those were stopped. We've heard already about the hijackings, the bombings in Argentina, the other terrorist acts undertaken. Well, to me it's pretty simple; you aren't neutral between terrorism and democracy. Canada should not be neutral between terrorism and democracy. When it comes time to take a position, we will take a bias in favour of democracy and freedom. We will have a bias against terrorism. I don't call it a bias; I call it a principled, fair-minded position.

The problem of terrorism is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. We see it all over the world, repeatedly. We've seen it in Madrid; we've seen it in the bombings in London; we've seen it in India recently; we saw it on September 11 in New York. We've had terrorism going back as far as.... In Canada, we've had assassinations, with D'Arcy McGee; we had the FLQ conducting terrorism on our own shores. Unfortunately, terrorism is becoming more widespread, better financed, and a more pernicious problem.

As for the concept of suicide bombers, I remember, when I was a kid growing up, the concept of the kamikaze bombers in World War II was considered bizarre. It was beyond comprehension how people could decide to kill themselves in a suicide-type bombing. Now suicide bombings are de rigueur. They're part of the terrorist menu virtually every day. They are so much in the news that people almost tune it out, until it arrives on our shores and harms us. The citizens of Israel and the citizens who have been the victims of Hezbollah around the world deserve the same kind of protection. The advent of terrorism is one of the biggest problems we have to wrestle with in security situations.

When we talk about the way Hezbollah has conducted itself in Lebanon and its use of civilian shields, Madam Mourani doubts this. Well, Jan Egeland, who is a top humanitarian official with the United Nations and who investigates the bombing locations, has made that finding. The Bloc Québécois may doubt that finding. They may decide that Hezbollah is actually a group of good guys, that they aren't using civilian shields and they don't make that part of their tactics. Jan Egeland has found otherwise. He has made it clear that he condemns their tactics. We should also.

We also recognize that this approach creates real challenges for countries trying to defend themselves from terrorism. As the minister said earlier today, you end up with two choices, and neither of them is good. One choice is to leave the terrorists to continue their attacks on civilians, and the other is to root out those terrorists and risk collateral damage. I don't think any of us would relish having to make those decisions.

But I can tell you, if it were Canada on the receiving end of the missiles, if it were Canadian civilians dying on Canada's shores from terrorist acts, I think we might feel more strongly than when we look at it clinically in another country like Israel.

For that reason, I believe what Jan Egeland said. I believe those tactics are happening. In fact, Hezbollah has been quite proud of its tactic of using civilian shields and how effectively it works in the public relations war. That's not surprising. The approach of that terrorist organization is primarily to take out and cause injury to innocent civilians. It's not a military type of operation, from the traditional perspective that we understand it.

I hope I have responded to the questions and issues you raised, Madam Mourani.

Madam Guarnieri asked a couple of questions that I think are valid. One is the question of an international force and why we haven't addressed that in our amendment that's on the table. The reality is that it's premature. We don't know what an international force would be. Would it be United Nations? Would it be NATO? Would it be a coalition of the willing? You can't tell me and I can't tell you, because none of us know.

There have already been peace talks. There have already been efforts to bring together some type of situation like that. Would it be a force that would go into a war zone between continually fighting combatants? Is that what we have in mind in terms of an international force? Do Canadians want to be part of that? Or would it be one that happened after there was a peace in place and we had a negotiated agreement? It's highly speculative whether we have the resources to do it and what kind of context it would be. I think that's very much a hypothetical question and that we'd be putting the cart before the horse on it. We certainly know that we have commitments and that Canada has a proud record of peacekeeping, though I must note that we haven't been part of the interim forces in Lebanon in the past.

That was the question. The reason the international force is not there is that it is simply premature. I'm certainly not expecting that Madam Guarnieri, or anybody else, would want Canada to move unilaterally by putting a force into Lebanon right now. I don't think anybody is arguing for that type of outcome. But in the absence of a multilateral force, it's hard for us to make a decision about signing up right now. Certainly, I don't think it's the government's position to move in unilaterally.

In terms of the condemnation language, I think there is such a thing as right and wrong. I think it's wrong to launch missiles at civilians. I think it's appropriate to condemn that. We can all hold hands and sing together and think good thoughts, but the reality is that some things are right and some things are wrong in human behaviour, and there's nothing wrong with condemning it. I know that Madam Lalonde has used the word “condemn” far more frequently than we have. Our resolution is a bit more toned down in that regard. But I do believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I can tell the difference most of the time.