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.