Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

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

It's hard to believe what I'm hearing here today when people make an argument for or against the word “sustainable”. My colleague Ms. McDonough said that we don't want a ceasefire that is just there for evacuation purposes and so on; we want a sustainable, enduring ceasefire. Yet she said she's reluctant to support this. Just to assure her, from my point of view, that there is no ulterior motive here, this is what it is: an immediate sustainable ceasefire, as far as I'm concerned.

I say to the opposition that there's the chance we could have a unanimous motion and a unanimous vote that would carry more weight than one that was divided. If the word “sustainable” is approved, it could be a unanimous vote that could carry some weight. I'll be voting in favour of the amendment to make it a “sustainable ceasefire”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Madam Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like Mr. Van Loan to explain what the term “sustainable” means to him? The word can be interpreted in a number of ways. What does the term mean to him?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're trying to work together here, so if Mr. Van Loan wants to respond to that, he may.

We do have a speakers order, but because it's a very sincere question, Mr. Van Loan, can you answer what your definition of the term “sustainable” would be?

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

I think Madam McDonough was heading in the right direction when she spoke about the notion of a ceasefire that just lets Canadians find a safe passage as not enough. You need something better than that. As I said, we already had a ceasefire on the Israeli side that may or may not have been sustainable. What we want is something that is real, sustainable, and has the ability to last with certainty.

Madam McDonough said it well when she said we want to have Canada speak with a clear voice. You've got a tremendous opportunity, as Mr. Casey pointed out here. The government has come some distance here, in an effort to achieve consensus, by indicating a willingness to support the amendment from the official opposition, provided that we insert the words “that is sustainable” to apply the immediate ceasefire.

I find it inconceivable that anybody would oppose the notion of a sustainable ceasefire. I think that's exactly what we want to work for, and we have an opportunity for Canada to speak with one voice, to go beyond something fragile that's not going to last, and to call for an immediate ceasefire that's sustainable.

This would be positive coming forward as a unanimous motion, would reflect our desire to see peace in the area, would reflect our desire to see an end to the bloodshed, and would be something positive that we could all endorse.

So I think it's quite simple; the words are there: “that is sustainable”. We can all be professors of English. Sure, treaties can be broken, and United Nations resolutions cannot be adhered to, and even a sustainable ceasefire may break down one day. But asking that the ceasefire be sustainable, rather than asking that we just have a gesture that's meaningless, which ends the next day, I don't think that's asking too much. It's a positive thing to ask for, and Canada would stand well to ask for a ceasefire that was seen as sustainable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for answering that question.

Mr. Obhrai.

No, I'm sorry, back to Madam Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't catch his definition of the word “sustainable”. He used the word repeatedly, but failed to give a definition. What is your government's definition of the word “sustainable”? What does the term imply? What are the different stages of sustainability, as far as your government is concerned? I'd like to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Able to sustain.

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

It means a country that will be sustained, a peace that will last, a ceasefire that will last. I don't think we want a ceasefire that's not going to last. I don't think we want a ceasefire that's going to be one day or a few hours long. We want one that's going to be sustainable, that will work.

Sustainable means it will work. I think we want a workable, lasting, and yes, immediate ceasefire. Where you've got the word “sustainable,” it means lasting. It's clear to me, and I think we can all support it. It reflects our position and what I thought you wanted. I thought the opposition wanted a sustainable ceasefire—perhaps you don't—but I think it's pretty simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Mourani, would you prefer the term—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I don't wish to belabour the point. I'll wrap things up quickly.

I don't understand the government's definition of “sustainable”. I think that what people want -- and what hopefully this government wants too -- is an immediate ceasefire, right this very minute. That is our wish and clearly we want this ceasefire to last as long as possible. I have to wonder about the word “sustainability” that I've come across in several releases issued by Mr. Harper or Mr. MacKay. However, I could be wrong. I have nothing further.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam Mourani.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The notion that you want an immediate ceasefire is very simplistic. It says, okay, you want a ceasefire, then what? You just can't get up one day and say, I want a ceasefire, and then what? Shut up, and don't do anything beyond that? You can't do that sort of thing.

A lot of people have died. Canadians, Lebanese, and Israelis have died. For their sake, that should not be in vain. We should come up with a plan to say we need long-term solutions, a long-term ceasefire. An immediate ceasefire would give the terrorist group Hezbollah the ammunition they need to say they have won, and give people like the Iranian president ammunition to say they have won. So this is very simplistic.

Yes, I understand the need to say, stop the killing. So we can tell the Israeli government to exercise extreme restraint, which is what we did in the motion we presented. But this will not work at the end of the day. We are making a mockery of the whole situation in the Middle East. People have died. It's a serious matter. So to just say we want an immediate ceasefire, and then make a full stop, is like....

That is why I think, when we say “sustainable ceasefire”, that's great. After that, the committee itself can sit down and come up with what the sustainable recommendation is. Then we can discuss the issue as well—and of course, within a very short period of time. But we really need to have a ceasefire that can last, not a ceasefire just for the sake of having a ceasefire.

That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

May I say that I really think we're making some headway here, and I appreciate the spirit of the way we're approaching this, both on the opposition side and on the government side. The government side has said there is no hidden reason for wanting “lasting” or “sustainable” brought in. I believe the opposition is starting to say, can we have something that we can be unanimous on, and show that we all recognize the severity of what's happening?

To that, I appreciate the advances we're making here.

Madam Lalonde.

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

Are we still on the sub-amendment? That's not what I'm about to discuss. I want to talk about whether or not the amendment is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

As to whether the amendment or the subamendment is in order?

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

I've been very clear about the fact that I am totally opposed to this sub-amendment. The word “sustainable” implies that some conditions exist, which means that the ceasefire hinges on those who have set the conditions. Consequently, it means nothing or means that the ceasefire is not immediate. I think we all understand the importance of this distinction. It means the ceasefire is not immediate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it may lead to a consensus, to actually achieving something, and that's why I think it was brought forward in good spirit.

Now I have Mr. Van Loan.

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

I was prepared to speak as the last one, to wind up, but let others--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough, then. She was on the list first, anyway.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not challenging the ruling that it's not out of order, but I have to say that it seems to me it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the point of calling for an immediate ceasefire, period. Nobody in their right mind would suggest--and even the most cynical, differing politicians could pretend--that those who would vote unconditionally for an immediate ceasefire favour a ceasefire that's not sustainable. That's patently ridiculous.

The whole point of an immediate ceasefire is twofold. One is to stop the killing on both sides now. That's why more and more voices in the international community have joined the call for the ceasefire now. Secondly, the point of the ceasefire now is to create the conditions in which the ceasefire will either be made sustainable or not, depending upon how robust, skilful, and inclusive the comprehensive the peace process is.

That means you have to recognize that in that process you have to respect and include both state and non-state parties. You have to recognize that what you're doing is bringing together parties that are either openly at war with each other, or have very different intentions about where this should end up.

As has been pointed out to us again and again as we've done our homework on what kind of comprehensive peace process is necessary to build genuine lasting peace in the Middle East, you cannot constantly demonize one party while you tolerate the most incredible violations from another party. You can't say that we so despise what we think are the intentions of Syria, Iran, and others in the region, we won't recognize that they have to be brought into a comprehensive peace process.

There is no other way to arrive at a sustainable peace in the Middle East. In order to arrive at that, the first condition required is to stop the killing--an immediate ceasefire. Then the international community will be tested. All of the parties contributing to this serious problem and all who are trying to contribute to a solution will either do their work in a way that creates the sustainability of that immediate ceasefire or fail to do so.

Let's demand the unconditional immediate ceasefire, and then let's all get to work and understand what it's going to require of us to put an end to the killing—not just immediately but in the medium and long terms.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Van Loan.

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

As the last speaker to wind up on the subamendment, our intention is quite clear. If we wanted to undermine the motion, we would have proposed taking out the word “immediate”. We have not done that; we're trying to build to a consensus that everybody can work with.

Madam McDonough, I'll remind you of what you said. You want something that goes beyond a fragile ceasefire that lets Canadians escape. You want something more than that. That's what this motion seeks to do by inserting the words “that is sustainable”. We are talking about a ceasefire that is sustainable.

You may find it uncomfortable to call for an immediate ceasefire that's sustainable. I don't know why anybody would find that uncomfortable. I think that's pretty easy to call for. I think that's something we can all be proud to call for. If we can do it unanimously, so much the better. To vote against this motion is to vote against the notion of an immediate ceasefire that's sustainable. Why you would vote against a call for an immediate ceasefire that's sustainable, I don't understand.

Remember, we're sitting here as a committee issuing a public declaration to sign that has some value. We aren't at the table right now with all the parties; we're trying to add something to the environment, to the atmosphere. Calling for an immediate ceasefire that's sustainable, which is what this amendment would have the effect of doing, would be a positive thing that all could support. Why you would be against a sustainable ceasefire is beyond me. Why anybody in the opposition would be against this sustainable ceasefire, which, if you're voting against the motion, is what you're doing, is beyond me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. We will call the question on the subamendment to the amendment. Basically the subamendment inserts, after the word “ceasefire”, the words “that is sustainable”.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

A recorded vote, please.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)