Foreign Affairs Committee on Aug. 1st, 2006

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. MacKay, thank you very much for being here with your officials.

It's a troubling time for all of us, and it must be tremendously troubling for you. It must be very difficult. It's troubling because of what's going on in the Middle East, and it's also troubling because of what's going on in Canada, because we're seeing our communities divided. That's very disappointing and troubling to me and to all of us here.

I commend you for the evacuation. I think it's incredible that your team was able to organize an evacuation of 13,000 people from anywhere.

Anyway, I want to move on to beyond the current crisis. You suggested humanitarian relief efforts. Canada chairs the working group on refugees, and the Palestinian refugees are in a terrible plight and they need a lot of assistance. This organization was set up through the Oslo Accord, but it was stopped in 1996. The League of Arab Nations has now indicated that they would support Canada restarting it. Canada chairs this important committee. I've discussed this with the Israeli ambassador, His Excellency Alan Baker, and I've heard direction from him as well. The secretary-general of the Arab League has indicated to me in writing, through the cooperation of the Egyptian embassy, that they would support Canada restarting the refugee working group.

I believe this is an important time and the right time to do this. Would the government agree that this is the time to restart this initiative?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

Mr. Minister, very quickly, please.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

I know you've had a long-standing interest in the Middle East. You've put a great deal of your personal time and effort into meeting with groups, and you have amassed what I would consider to be a vast knowledge of some of the useful steps forward, one of which you've just mentioned. Although it has been suspended, I think this working group, which is currently chaired by Canada, is a great piece of the puzzle that will lead to peace in the Middle East. This is a multi-faceted, complex, historical Gideon's knot, to say the least.

I think that any useful dialogue at the United Nations, in the international community, and between citizen's groups is going to be helpful in contributing to that solution. As far as your references to the dispute in Gaza, that has to be part of the overall broader solution.

Although the focus right now is with Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the Israelis, the situation in Palestine can't be ignored. I think you're going to see that there will be broader discussions. As you know, Canada continues to provide humanitarian assistance and has made further contributions recently to the cause of Palestinian aid and humanitarian relief in that affected part of the Middle East.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

To Madame McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I too want to thank the minister for appearing, although I had to gulp down a psychological Valium so as not to overreact to his decision to spend 23 minutes of testimony on self-congratulations and self-justification around the evacuation. I think a consensus could very easily have been achieved here to congratulate Foreign Affairs staff, embassy staff, and NGOs for the incredible work they did around the evacuation. I suppose I didn't really expect the minister to address the question of the Prime Minister's micromanagement and photo op approach to dealing with this situation.

I want to go directly to the issue of a ceasefire.

I don't question that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is genuinely concerned about the death of eight Canadians, the El-Akhras family, although I think it would be more appropriate to increase that number to eleven because three more have died as a result of that massacre. I don't question that he regrets--those were the words he used--the murder of a Canadian peacekeeper. What I do question is the disingenuousness of a position that says a ceasefire has to be delayed for this, that, and the other reason, while talking so eloquently about the carnage and the destruction of the infrastructure--basically, describing the disproportionate response of Israel in violation of international law. It's not the words of the minister, but the action or, more accurately, the inaction of this government.

Notwithstanding all the words about wanting to ensure a safe passage for the remaining Canadians in Lebanon, would the minister not agree that no such safe passage can or will be assured without a ceasefire?

Secondly, would he also not agree--he's the lawyer--that the UN Charter makes it absolutely clear that every citizen's life in the world is equal to every other citizen's life, and that every state is equal before every other state? The decision of his government to hide, almost alone in the world, behind these self-justifications and delays in demanding and pressing for an instant ceasefire puts us absolutely in lockstep with one party only, and that's the Bush administration. It puts us almost entirely and obscenely out of step with practically every other member of the international community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame McDonough.

Mr. MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the member for her questions.

I take issue with the fact that my statement was about self-congratulations. I tried as best I could to express my personal gratitude to the officials who have carried out this extraordinary exercise.

I don't think heightened rhetoric is going to bring about a solution. I think the result is the key. The result is obviously a ceasefire. I agree with the member that a ceasefire is absolutely critical and instrumental to not only the provision of humanitarian relief and the removal of the injured, the displaced, and those who simply want to leave. It can't happen without a ceasefire, or it can only continue in the fashion that it has, which is very dangerous not only to those who wish to leave and seek assistance, but to those who are trying to provide that relief. However, a ceasefire, as I mentioned earlier, is not a one-sided affair. There has to be a number of conditions that accompany the ceasefire.

I would suggest that an international intervention, unless some country emerges that is willing to take this on, will not happen, in fact. They must be simultaneous. There has to be a ceasefire before an international intervention can occur. That is part of the important labyrinth that the UN is trying to navigate currently in their efforts.

As far as the UN Charter is concerned, in international law all states are certainly equal. The protection of human life is sacred beyond any codified law. I'll take no issue with that.

As far as being in lockstep with anybody is concerned, we're a member of NATO. We're a NORAD country. We're a country that has a vested interest in protection of human life, not only within our own boundaries. We believe very strongly in this country in some of the important values--democracy, human rights, the orderly and fair treatment of individuals--and we are not living in splendid isolation in North America. We certainly have obligations to the broader world, including the Middle East. That's why we have been active participants in these discussions, at the G8, at the UN, and at this hastily convened meeting in Rome.

Canada is an important player on the international scene and will continue to offer a voice of reason and an opinion on all of these subjects and more. So for me it's not a difficult choice between siding with a state, a democratically elected government, a democracy that's being attacked by terrorists, and a group of cold-blooded killers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Madame McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

You know, I think this statement by the minister just reinforces the utter horror of Canadians in how far Canada has been cut loose from its moorings and abandoned the role, which has been valued in the world, of Canada being extremely one-sided about one thing--that is, standing behind international law, humanitarian law, behind our obligations under our various UN agreements.

I want to ask the minister, is it all of Canadians who are wrong? Is the international community all wrong in their perception that this government has decided unquestionably to take sides with one of a two-sided--in fact, multi-sided--dispute that he himself has said is complex and historic? Are we all wrong in thinking this government has abandoned that role as an independent internationalist multilateralist that is prepared to use its middle-power weight to try to bring about a ceasefire immediately by putting pressure on both sides, instead of signing on to one side of the hostilities? Are we all wrong, and are he and his Prime Minister the only ones who see it in an enlightened way?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, let me answer this way: Canada is certainly not alone. We have a lot of international allies that we've been working with constructively and productively from the very beginning. I don't need to list the G8 countries. I don't need to list all of the countries that are actively engaged in this exercise both at the UN and in other meetings that are taking place simultaneously.

Lebanon is being held hostage by Hezbollah. There can be no doubt about that. Hezbollah is a cancer on Lebanon, which is destroying stability and democracy within its boundaries. The EU has just released a statement that says that the council calls for an immediate end to the hostilities, to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire. That has been the position of Canada and it has been the position of other nations throughout this time. It calls for a ceasefire by all parties involved, and one of those parties is a terrorist organization.

I don't think I'm alone. A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen quotes Liberal Senator Colin Kenney as saying, “I'm sorry, Canada's traditional way is picking sides, getting on the good guy's side and going for the win.”

It goes on to say, “If you give me a choice between the state of Israel--the only democracy in the Middle East--and Hezbollah--a bunch of thugs who are out to assassinate and disrupt society--that's a no-brainer.”

He went on to say in reference to some of his other colleagues and their comments in the news, “...there's nothing nuanced about a bunch of terrorists shooting rockets into a country like that, and when that happens I expect the country to use all its force to eliminate them.”

Mr. Chair, I don't think Canada's position is isolated in any way. I don't think we have done anything other than participate productively and actively in looking for solutions that will lead to a ceasefire. That's what we've done from the beginning, and that's what we'll continue to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

You have more time, Ms. McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I think there is an overwhelming consensus, and one that's growing, that there is no military solution to the long-standing complex hostilities in the Middle East. Yet this government seems to be prepared to ignore the international law that says, yes, a country has a right to defend itself, but it must do so in proportion to the threat, and it must use only necessary force. There is overwhelming evidence that disproportionate force is at work there.

Has this government openly demanded an investigation into the deaths of 11 members of a Canadian Lebanese family and demanded an apology from the Government of Israel for both those deaths and the death of a UN observer killed in the line of duty, attacked essentially for doing his job? The attack implied that there was something wrong with these UN observers since they didn't know there was a war going on and that they should get out of the way. Has this government officially demanded an inquiry and officially demanded a public apology? If not, why not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame McDonough.

Go ahead very quickly, Minister MacKay.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I have sought and received assurances from Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister of Israel, that it will embark on an investigation. I think she has publicly said that. She expressed to me, as I understand did the Prime Minister of Israel, sincere condolences for the deaths of all the Canadians that have tragically lost their lives in this conflict. To that degree, the answer is yes.

As far as the international law is concerned, it applies to both state and non-state actors. Again, I underscore the need for Hezbollah to agree to this ceasefire as well as other conditions that have been requested. We will continue to advocate that position, as have others. We will continue to look for any and all means that will bring about a peaceful solution to this current conflict, but it has to be--and everyone I've spoken to agrees--a lasting peace. It cannot be simply a temporary solution to allow for the rearmament of the terrorist body in order to begin the violence again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go to the second round, Mr. Van Loan and Mr. Goldring.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. McDonough just finished taking a shot at you for talking about the evacuation and self-congratulations. I'd remind Ms. McDonough that the reason we are here at this committee is because Madame Lalonde asked us to come and discuss just that.

In her letter asking the committee to meet, she wrote:

“First, it should evaluate the concrete results of measures taken by the Canadian government to evacuate Quebec and Canadian nationals from Lebanon.”

That's why we're here, so the minister was quite right to be discussing that. I suppose it has been such a success that there's a desire to change the subject.

Mr. Patry did so, and he referenced Suez 1956 as the height of Canadian foreign policy.

In 1956 Canada was not neutral; Canada took a very clear side. The Liberal Prime Minister of the day, Louis St. Laurent, was in lockstep with the Republican U.S. President, Dwight Eisenhower. They took a clear side, and by taking a clear, principled stand, we were able to be honest brokers in the creation of peacekeeping, which arose later out of that conflict. So it's not in the Canadian tradition to be neutral, even when we were creating peacemaking.

I'm very concerned and troubled by what I hear from the Bloc and from the NDP, in particular, about the suggestion that there's some moral equivalency between the parties here. Hezbollah is a listed terrorist group under Canadian law. That happened under the Liberal government. Why? They were party to a series of kidnappings of westerners in Lebanon in the 1980s. We all remember the suicide truck bombing that killed 200 Americans in the barracks in Beirut. Some of us remember the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847—that's the one where a gun was held to the head of the pilot out the window. This is a terrorist group. There were major attacks outside of Lebanon, in Argentina on the Israeli embassy. About 29 were killed there, and I think there were 95 killed at a Jewish community centre.

Jan Egeland, the UN humanitarian top guy in Lebanon, has talked about their use of civilians—women and children—as human shields in the current conflict, and how they take pride in those casualities as a way of helping their promotion. This is a terrorist group.

I simply ask the minister, is it in Canada's tradition to be neutral between such a terrorist group and a sovereign democracy?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly not, Mr. Van Loan. Canada cannot be neutral on issues that relate to fundamental issues such as the protection of civilians, the sanctity of human life, and the cessation of violence. All of that leaves a clear choice when it comes to a terrorist organization that is the perpetrator and the provocateur of this crisis. Hezbollah has indicated no give, no willingness, nor any desire to talk or to engage in diplomatic solutions.

Like Ms. McDonough, you referenced the UN peacekeeper who was tragically killed in this. As I understand, that will also be investigated, and there is an undertaking at the UN to demand further information.

There has been a lot of discussion about the tactic used by Hezbollah of invoking human shields, whereby, as I understand it, locations are sought out in the very centre of civilian populations—in churches, mosques, schools, hospitals, and private residences—from which rockets are fired.

I don't profess to be a military expert, but I understand that the equipment being used to return fire traces the path or the trajectory of those rockets. So you're absolutely right to suggest that Hezbollah is deliberately putting innocent civilians in harm's way, as a base from which they launch their rockets.

Alan Dershowitz, a renowned human rights lawyer, wrote an article about this quite recently, which was republished in the National Post. He talks specifically about the options this presents when civilians are used as human shields. He says there are only two options presented to democracies victimized by those tactics. They can do nothing or try to destroy the rocket launchers, with the inevitable toll of civilian casualties that any such counterattack will produce. Both options produce a victory for the terrorists and a defeat for the targeted democracy. It's not an easy choice, by any means.

But if countries are going to go to whatever extent they deem necessary to protect their civilians, it's easy for us in the safety and sanctity of this building to try to measure that response to a nicety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

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

I just want to answer Mr. Van Loan for 10 seconds--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

No, it's coming into your round now.

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

--just about history. I just want to let him know that in 1956 we had Great Britain, the U.S., France, and Canada standing with the United Nations. If it's to be the United Nations, it's not neutral, that's the fact, but we didn't attack the United Nations. That's the difference from 1956.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for that commentary, Mr. Patry. You being the historian, I will not argue with you.

But it is your round, and the time is coming off your clock, Mr. Martin.

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

Minister MacKay, thank you for being here today.

I just returned last night from Geneva and Rome, where I had extensive meetings with UN organizations and NGOs on this issue, and quite frankly, they cannot believe the ideological one-sided approach that Canada has taken on this and the abandonment of our principles of being a fair-minded, effective player in this very difficult arena.

This began as a very legal response on the part of Israel, but unfortunately it has deteriorated to the wholesale destruction of a good chunk of Lebanon. Do you know, Minister, that before this started, Hezbollah had only 13% support in Lebanon? Now it's 89%. Of the 800 people who have died, 40% are children--40%. Humanitarian access corridors are being choked off.

Minister, this is the first that we've heard of a ceasefire, and it has to happen for the security of all the countries there, including Israel, because the violence that is taking place there is actually affecting every country's security--every country's--and the seeds are burning brightly and dangerously not only for the region but also for Canada and the international community, and I think you know that.

My question, sir, is very simple--I have three. First, the goal is the security of all countries in the region. Why has it taken so long for the Canadian government to call for a ceasefire? Which side is actually participating in calling for that ceasefire in the region?

Will you ensure, and what are you doing to ensure, safe access corridors for humanitarian goods into the area?

Last, three conditions that will enable a ceasefire are the exchange of prisoners on both sides, a peacekeeping force into the area, and the return of the Shebaa Farms. Will you support those three conditions for a ceasefire?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going to ask Ms. Guarnieri to pose her question, and then we'll have the minister respond.

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

Thank you.

On a side note, I want to congratulate you on your recent appointment of John McNee as ambassador to the UN. Those of us who have worked with him know he's a superior choice.

I know my colleagues have focused in on the evacuation and the reasons so many Canadians were put in dangerous and difficult circumstances. You stated that Canadians were at risk because air transport, which is a normal route for evacuation, was a closed option. It occurs to me that the reason this entire circumstance and the challenges came about was the bombing of the only airport in Beirut, an action that the Prime Minister knew about and supported when he declared the action “measured”.

Were the military benefits worth endangering Canadians and putting thousands through an ordeal of evacuation? This one act has cost our country millions of dollars and thrust thousands of Canadians into humanitarian emergency. So perhaps you can tell the committee whether you, or whether the government, rather, continues to be satisfied that the bombing of the one useful escape route for Canadians was justified and measured.

As well, my colleague has eloquently mentioned that to date the human cost is beyond measure, and to date there is no sign that the tragedies are bringing us any closer to a ceasefire. You've stated in your text, as has been pointed out, that ceasefire is not the first thing called for. So my question quite simply is, does the Government of Canada believe the bombardment of villages is going to bring an end to this conflict or in fact make peace harder to achieve?

If we turn from tragedy of the present to hope for a better future, specifically how does the Government of Canada define peace in Lebanon? How does the government foresee implementing Resolution 1559 with a shattered national government, a devastated economy, an inspired guerrilla group with support from Syria and Iran, and no sign of security to come for northern Israel? Who would you propose as participants in a negotiated peace, and what do you think that peace would look like?

That was quite a mouthful.