Thank you, Mr. Patry.
In response to your first question, I think it's fair to say that all countries in the region are far more acutely aware of the volatility of the situation in Lebanon; the presence of Hezbollah, particularly in the south; and the ongoing threat and tension that provides to Israel and the region generally.
Clearly, in advance of the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the crossing of the international border by Hezbollah, there was a previous incident involving the kidnapping of a soldier and a similar scenario that unfolded between the Palestinian territories and Israel. So the escalation had begun and the tensions existed in advance of the explosion of military action. Yes, I was aware of that, my officials were certainly aware of that, and we had discussions.
I mentioned in my opening statement that there was an evacuation plan and that there is an evacuation plan in all embassies. However, I go back to my earlier point that because of Canada's geographic distance from the region, the lack of military resources we had in the region, the size of our embassy compared to other countries, and the escalation of violence that occurred as quickly as it did, I don't think it's a reasonable criticism to suggest that Canadian officials did not move quickly, given the resources they had.
Secondly, from the conclusion of the G8, Canada has maintained that a ceasefire had to occur. That was part of the progression of steps called for by the G8 statement, to which Canada is a signatory. Out of Rome there is a similar declaration from participating countries, of which Canada is one, that calls for a cessation of violence.
Simply calling for a ceasefire doesn't make it happen. There has to be more than just words here. I'm also quick to point out, as you know, that a ceasefire cannot occur with only one party participating in the ceasefire.