As far as there being bombardment of a civilian airport is concerned, we were not consulted, nor did we advocate the removal of the only means of air transport out of the country of Lebanon. The Prime Minister was certainly not talking specifically of that act when he made the statement early in this crisis.
Am I satisfied that we have done and continue to do everything possible to assist in the evacuation and removal of Canadian citizens who have contacted us, or whom we have contacted, and expressed a desire to leave? Yes, and we'll continue to do so through every means possible when roads become more secure and that airport is eventually repaired, which we hope will be soon. I think planes have now landed there offering humanitarian relief, which is a positive sign that some of those runways are open. I think you will see Canada's participation in the humanitarian relief and reconstruction begin right away.
Do I think that bombardment is a path to peace? Certainly not. This human tragedy cannot be lost on anyone who has a drop of the milk of human kindness. This has been one of the most horrific things I have seen in my lifetime: the suffering that Mr. Martin has described and all of us have borne witness to, either through the eyes of the victims who have recited their stories or the depictions we've seen on our national broadcasts. No one with a heart or soul can be immune from being affected by this and those graphic pictures.
How do I define peace in Lebanon? It's certainly the cessation of violence, and the immediate attention of the world and the international community to come to their rescue and make significant contributions to the rehabilitation of their entire country. The sad tragedy that exacerbates or even doubles this crisis is that Lebanon was well on its way. Beirut in particular was one of the most vibrant cities not only in the region but in the world, and I think many of you who have been to that region would affirm that.
How do we implement Resolution 1559? This seems to have escaped the international community generally. As you know, it calls for the securing of all of the borders and the sovereign exercise of democracy over the entire nation, including the south. It also calls for the disarmament of all military groups, which includes Hezbollah. Why has that not happened? That is a question for everyone--for the UN in particular, where this resolution emanated.
So peace in the Middle East, peace in Lebanon, will occur when people adhere to those international commitments; when the international community, through collaborative efforts, is finally able to bring about an end to the violence. Simply put, that is my definition of what has to occur here. It has to occur quickly, and it has to occur inside Lebanon.
Mr. Martin asked a number of questions about the timing of our call for a ceasefire. As a participant at the G8, I hearken back to that statement of July 16, which was four days into the conflict:
The most urgent priority is to create conditions for a cessation of violence that will be sustainable and lay the foundation for a more permanent solution. This, in our judgment, requires: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; An end to the shelling of Israeli territory; An end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; The release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.
This applies to both sides. An adherence by Hezbollah and Israel to those conditions will be a ceasefire and a cessation of violence.
The Rome statement, of which we are a signatory, says:
The Rome conference participants expressed their determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities. The cease-fire must be lasting, permanent and sustainable.
That statement, of which Canada is a signatory, is dated July 26.
On July 16, and 10 days later on July 26, Canada called for a ceasefire, along with our international partners.
What do I think Canada's role going forward is going to be? I think we can continue to be a reasoned participant in these discussions at high levels both at the UN and elsewhere, at whatever meetings take place around the most important questions, which I think both of you alluded to, which are these: What will an international force look like? Who will lead that force? What will its mandate be? What will be the timing of its entry into Lebanon? And what will its role be once inside Lebanon?
One of the suggestions I've made is that this force should secure the borders, with the active participation and involvement of the Lebanese army, to cut off the supply lines to Hezbollah to ensure that no further rockets munitions are going to be brought in, either through the ports or through the border with Syria. That, among other efforts, is again part of the larger participation that isn't a military solution, but it's part of an international peacemaking exercise that has to occur.
What Canada's role might be in that international intervention is yet to be determined, because the mandate has not been set. That, I believe, is the most primary, principled, and urgent task that the UN has before it right now.