Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, but it would have.... With the logistics of how this room was--with the media, and the room was packed--you could not suspend and come back in one minute. You know, Mr. Patry, that it would have been virtually impossible at a quarter after 12, when the next meeting was coming back at one o'clock.

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

That's fine. We'll start now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To my esteemed colleague Bernard Patry, who was the chairman last time, we cooperated with you. There's nothing at all telling you not to cooperate. You are giving unreal threats. I don't know why. You have been a chairman in the past, and we have cooperated.

You can take that motion out right now and go on to what Madame Folco said, which is one of the most important things, but you are being stubborn and you are refusing to do that. You know, for a man of your stature...when you were the chairman, you were far more compromising, and all those things. It gives me cause for concern when you accuse us of not helping, but we are. You can withdraw.

As for what Madame Folco said, in the best interests of everybody and so we can move the committee forward, we'll go back to the committee as well. Nobody is saying that we are not going to committee business. All we are saying is let's hear them and get a better idea of what is happening, and then talk about committee business. We haven't declined that, and I think her suggestion is the best.

I think that while Mr. Patry, on a procedural tactic, can talk about the motion on the floor as the mover of the motion on the floor and as a former chairman of the foreign affairs committee in which we all cooperated, it is in our best interest for Mr. Patry just to say he withdraws, and we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring is next.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

To repeat, the concern is that this meeting on the committee business might deprive us of hearing from the witnesses before a decision is made, and we really should have been apprised of what the witnesses can say.

I really feel that Madame Folco has made a very good offer on this. It makes sense. We are allowed to hear the witnesses--they're here, they're ready to go--and then deal with that committee business after we've heard from the witnesses. I really don't see why the opposition parties would object to that, unless there are some other ulterior motives on the committee business that could impact it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Casey is next.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I just want to add my support to Madame Folco's proposal. It follows the agenda. The committee business is on the agenda. We've wasted 50 minutes of valuable time. I think we should go back to the agenda as first adopted when we came in this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Van Loan.

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

I'm going to reiterate. I have yet to hear a single reason why we can't hear from CIDA now from any member of the opposition, unless there is something coming forward that involves debating Madame Lalonde's motion in full, which I don't think we should do before we hear witnesses. I don't believe anybody thinks we should do that before we have all the evidence. I hope they don't believe we should be taking positions before we have all the evidence. That would be one reason you might want to go ahead.

Another reason you might want to go ahead is that you don't want to hear from CIDA, but there is absolutely no reason that we can't have committee business--procedural discussion--after we've heard from CIDA and after we've heard from the Red Cross as well, as Madame Folco has suggested. There is no reason at all that we can't proceed in that fashion.

Absent that, there seems to be no need for the motion that is on the floor, a motion that has now cost an hour of time that these individuals and officials would have spent working on the humanitarian issues in Lebanon. An hour of time has been lost already. How much more time will be spent when we actually do debate committee business? This has been a debate not on the actual substance of committee business, but on whether to even do it. Does anybody here realistically think that if we're going to have a lengthy discussion like this on the substance of committee business, we're ever going to hear from them today? No, we'll lose a whole day of their time, and that would be most unfortunate.

In the absence of a single argument, a single proposition put forward by any of the members of the opposition as to why we can't hear from CIDA before we deal with committee business, I see no reason why we shouldn't hear from CIDA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I think there's a motion on the floor. It's well-known where opposition members stand and where government members stand. It seems to me that the way to deal with this efficiently and with dispatch is to have a vote on the motion before the committee. On the basis of the democratic decision of the committee, we should proceed with the rest of our business here today.

I know there isn't a procedure that allows us to demand an immediate vote when you call for a vote, but I call for a vote in the spirit of what's been said on both sides. Let's get on with the business. The immediate business is the motion that's before the committee. Let's vote on it and get on with our business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do we have any other comments?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I just want to note that I think we're coming to a conclusion. What we're seeing here is a political play by the Liberals and the opposition to change the agenda to meet their own political requirements. This was supposed to be a straightforward hearing on everything that happened. Unfortunately, one hour of talking and the former chairman's stubbornness in not moving on can only lead me to believe that this agenda is being hijacked for political purposes, not the actual reason why we all came here.

I came here to listen to everybody, come to an idea, and understand the whole picture with the foreign minister and everybody here. So I want to make it very clear that this has now become a political hot potato, and it's no longer what we came here for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is there anyone else?

Are we ready for the question? The motion is that we postpone CIDA until later and proceed to committee business.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I am going to ask you to leave your chairs, CIDA, and we will now go to committee business.

Omar, I'd love to accept your point of order, but you aren't a member of the committee.

We'll move to committee business. I assume we want to deal with Madam Lalonde's motion.

Madam Lalonde, you brought forward a motion. It has received the adequate timelines for bringing it forward. Would you like to speak to the motion?

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

Mr. Chairman, even if these aren't the best of circumstances, I would have liked to see people be more open to discussing this important question.

I have drafted a motion that some may find long, but that really isn't given the import and complexity of the subject. I will read it and provide brief explanations as needed. I'll start with the “givens”.

Given the strong bonds of friendship that unite Canada, especially Quebec, with Lebanon, a pluralistic and francophone democracy and given that it is committed to its security; Given that Canada is a long-standing friend of Israel, that it actively contributed to its creation and that it is also committed to its security; Given that these friendships require a balanced position that takes into account the interests and viewpoints of both sides of the conflict; Given that Canada's balanced position has, in the past, earned the respect of all camps in the Middle East conflict and allowed it to further the peace process; Given that, of all Western countries, Canada had the largest number of nationals in Lebanon at the outbreak of hostilities and that the government's apparent lack of preparation to the crisis has raised questions and dissatisfaction; Given the right to self defence included in international law in article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of proportionality; Given that the parties involved in a conflict have the obligation to respect international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention...

[An hon. member]

[ Editor's note: inaudible]

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

I'm sorry, but I'm familiar with the contents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll proceed, Madame Lalonde.

Could we have order? She's bringing forward her motion.

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

Given that the parties involved in a conflict have the obligation to respect international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian persons in Times of War and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, which are an absolute imperative in the conduct of war and place personal criminal responsibility on those involved;

Louise Arbour recently called this to mind.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs: Offers its sincere condolences to the families of Canadians who have died during the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon and deplores the lack of compassion shown by the government;

I'm referring here to Canadian victims; that's why I've not mentioned victims in Israel.

Questions the government's delay in implementing an evacuation plan for Canadian citizens in Lebanon, calls upon it to extend the evacuations to Canadian permanent residents [...]

We discussed that matter this morning.

[...] and to implement concrete measures to help those who are in the southern part of Lebanon [...]

As Marian Mourani so aptly described.

[...] where the hostilities are the most intense;

No one disagrees with that.

Recommends that the government hold a public inquiry into the evacuation operation as soon as possible and draw lessons from this experience;

During the evacuation Swedish nationals praised their government for its efforts. The tsunami proved to be a nightmare for Sweden but it drew on the experience gained from the ensuing inquiry.

Condemns the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah;

Condemns the Israeli bombings that followed the two kidnappings as not respecting the principle of proportionality that contrains the right to self defence;

Believes that the Government of Canada, the only country in the world to have called Israel's attack on Lebanon “measured”, not taking into account the extent of the destruction of civilian infrastructures, destroyed Canada's reputation as a trusted third party abroad, and urges it to reconsider its position to conclude in the disproportionate character of those attacks;

Strongly condemns the launching of Hezbollah rockets on Israeli territory;

Strongly condemns the bombings that affect in an indiscriminate way civilians [...]

Like those in Qana.

[...] and destroy civilian infrastructures essential to the populations such as roads, bridges, airports and electricity plants;

Among other things.

Urges the government to support the calls of almost all other countries for an immediate ceasfire on both sides;

Urges the government to require Israel, by the time a ceasefire -- which should be immediate -- is declared, to make a far greater and more credible effort to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure;

Strongly deplores that, by taking sides, the government has prevented Canada from playing a conciliatory role in restoring and maintaining peace in the region;

Questions the Prime Minister's weak reaction to the bombardment of the UN post that led to the death of a Canadian UN military observer;

Reminds the government that Canada's official foreign policy is still based on the need to resolve the conflict through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab world and that the Committee expressed this same opinion in its report on Canada's relations wtih countries of the Muslim world, adopted unanimously on March 25, 2004;

Considers that there will be no peace in the region without a global and negotiated settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict;

Maintains that the use of force will never resolve the conflicts in the Middle East;

Reiterates its commitment to the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Lebanon and deplores that the damage caused by the bombardment has weakened the ability of the Lebanese government to effectively oversee its territory; Calls on the Government of Canada to provide aid to Lebanon so that the Lebanese Government, with the help of the international community, can peacefully disarm the militias; Urges the government to announce an assistance plan for Lebanon that is appropriate to the needs; Decides to report this resolution to the House, including its preamble.

I truly hope the committee will vote in favour of this motion which is carefully drafted in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law and which seeks a fair peace, a peace that recognizes that armed conflict will never resolve the conflicts throughout the Middle East, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.There can be no talk of Lebanon and Hezbollah without reference to the Palestinian cause. Need we remind people that Hezbollah was founded in 1982 further to another Israeli invasion.

This is, in my view, a balanced motion. It may seem harshly worded to some . It wasn't an easy motion to draft. I would have preferred to skirt certain issues. However, as members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, if we want to be respected and to wield any kind of influence, we must adopt a stand consistent with international law and international humanatarian law. We must call a spade a spade. Compassion, truth and justice are the key consideration. I'm not saying by any means that this motion cannot be amended. However, I do hope that overall, it will garner the committee's support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Lalonde, for a very comprehensive motion. Certainly, it covers most parts of the Middle East crisis.

We'll go to Mr. Van Loan.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Now we have the outcome I exactly feared when we were debating going into committee business: we're being asked right now to make decisions and take a position before we hear the evidence of the witnesses, which Madame Lalonde in her letter asked us to be debating.

She wanted us to discuss humanitarian aid; she wanted to hear about that. Her motion “urges the government to announce an assistance plan for Lebanon that's appropriate to the needs”, yet every member of the opposition just voted to prevent CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, from providing evidence on exactly the humanitarian assistance plan that is in place, that is being implemented—the $5.5 million of humanitarian aid. We know nothing of it.

I'm shocked that we have a decision by the opposition, and now a motion that we're debating, to make a decision. Never mind the facts; never mind the information. We want to shut down democracy; we've already made up our minds. We're going to close our ears. Here's the motion; let's go. That's what's happening here.

We had witnesses we wanted to hear from later from the Lebanese community, who are on the agenda, who have travelled from Vancouver, from Montreal, from Toronto, from all across this country, to let us know about their experiences with the evacuation—some are evacuees—and to let us know their position. Well, apparently we're being asked to decide in the absence of that.

This is a country that is supposed to be standing up for democracy. This is a country that is supposed to be standing as an example of how democracy works. This is a committee that, through the opposition, is deciding to make decisions without even hearing the evidence and the facts.

Earlier today I spoke about the notion of a justice system where judges make decisions without hearing the evidence. That's what this committee, through the decisions of the opposition today to proceed with this motion now, before hearing the evidence of witnesses, is doing.

That's not justice. Madame Lalonde had the temerity to use the word “justice” in her discussions. Justice? What kind of justice is it when you make a decision first and then choose to hear your witnesses later. That's what this committee is being asked to do. That, to me, is not justice. That's shutting down democracy, and it's a shame.

It's a shame, what we're doing here. But the reality is that we've been dealt these cards. There was no request to add additional witnesses. We would have happily done that. Mr. Obhrai, on behalf of the government, was happy to do it. So it's a false argument that you didn't like the witness list. He said we'd be happy to have more, and we could have done it. But no, we have to jam it through. It's a nice summer; we don't want to work hard. We'll call you back, but only long enough to pass a motion, not enough to actually do any work, not enough to actually hear from the Canadian people on this issue. We call back the committee to hear from the Canadian people, but now that we're here, let's not bother; let's just go ahead and make a decision.

That's what we're being asked to do right now. I'm saddened by that, and it's shameful.

That's the hand we are dealt by the opposition in this matter, and I'm very sad about it; however, on behalf of the government at this point in time, what I would like to do is propose an amendment to Madame Lalonde's motion, and I'll provide copies to the clerk to circulate.

We've been working all night on this, and all day, and you will see in this amendment references to statements made by members of the opposition today during our discussion—including Madam McDonough's statement that she wishes the session had started today with a motion to congratulate the government on the evacuation; we inserted that.

Yes, we've been working all day on this, Mr. McTeague. We've been working on making sure we can do the best we can under the circumstances, without the evidence to take a position. However, I will—

Yes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I would ask you to speak to the motion. I'm going to ask you also, because this is in one official language, to read it into the record. Because this is an amendment to a motion that was brought forward today, you'll have to read it into the record.

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

That's no problem.

It says “Amendment to Motion”—