EVIDENCE Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development NUMBER 015 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, August 1, 2006 Le mardi er août Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE August 1, 2006 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 015 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 015 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 015 (Version officielle) 15 01 08 2006 2006/08/01 10:15:00 House of Commons Comité permanent des affaires étrangères et du développement international Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development FAAE Chair Mr.

Kevin Sorenson 39 1 (1020) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC)) : I call this meeting to order. Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) : Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I know everybody is anxious to hear from the minister, and I'm no exception, but I want the assurance of the committee that we will deal with the next order of business, which is committee business, before there's any recess for a lunch break.

It's extremely important we do this in terms of having balanced, diverse witnesses and in terms of my motion, which was not put on the order paper, although I got it in well before the traditional five o'clock cut-off yesterday. The Chair : Madam McDonough, I think what we've seen here is that we're late getting started. This committee has been called back in order to hear from the department and in order to discuss the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. I can assure you that we will be dealing with committee business. When that's going to be, I'm not prepared to make any assurance.

If, all of a sudden, we go through and we don't hear from the minister long enough, or from those witnesses who are slated..... Certainly, we're on a timeline right now. Ms. Alexa McDonough : We're in a severe crisis that Canada has got to take some responsibility for. I'm asking for the assurance and consent of the committee that we deal with the committee business about how we're going to proceed with witnesses and motions before we take a lunch break. Or are we just going to have people look on and say, we're all out to lunch?

This is really a very straightforward request, and I don't mean it to be obstructionist in the least. I'm asking for assurance from the chair that we will deal with that matter before we break for lunch. The Chair : At the present time I'm not prepared to give that assurance, because on this committee each one has their say. When we come around to committee business, or if at 11:50 someone makes the suggestion we do this--and obviously the opposition has more say in a minority government--the committee business will be dealt with.

But the timing of committee business will depend on when we listen to the minister and to those witnesses we've called for this meeting. Ms. Alexa McDonough : I register my objection that there's not a willingness to commit to dealing with this priority before a lunch break, but I completely concur that we need to get on with hearing from the minister. The Chair : I think the sooner we hear from the minister, the greater the opportunity and chance to move to the other things that are on this agenda will be.

I call this 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to order. This meeting has been called pursuant to a request made under Standing Order 106 (4) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The stated reason in the request for this meeting was to deal with the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, to deal with how Canada is working with its international community in the evacuation process, Canada's role in humanitarian aid, and also the crisis in the Middle East.

This was brought forward initially by four letters, and those were the reasons that this committee was called back. We welcome you all to Ottawa on a very warm day. We are so pleased that this committee has so much attention drawn to it. We recognize the crisis that the world is in. We recognize Canada's evacuation of Canadians and how important that is. We look forward to hearing from the minister. Minister MacKay, welcome to your committee. We look forward to hearing from you. Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs) : Thank you, Mr.

Chair and committee members, for the important work that we are about to undertake. I want to begin by reiterating on behalf of the Government of Canada our grave concern for the victims of violence on all sides of this conflict in Israel and Lebanon. Canadians have been profoundly affected by the crisis in the Middle East. For many, that experience has been deeply personal and deeply painful.

Individuals and whole communities have anxiously awaited the safe return of their loved ones, and sadly, among the war dead are Canadians: UN observer Major Hess-von Kruedener; a Canadian killed in military service, Lieutenant Tom Farkash; and what I would consider to be the height of the harm of innocents, the eight family members from Montreal, the El-Akhras family, who were killed in this conflict. Families have grieved the loss of life, and all have lamented the tremendous suffering of innocent Lebanese and Israeli civilians caught in this crossfire.

I want to extend again, on behalf of the government, sincere condolences to the families of the victims, both from Canada and from abroad. Our thoughts are with them, and words cannot begin to convey the pain and the suffering that they have experienced at this troubled time. The loss of a loved one at any time is difficult. In these circumstances, it is beyond the comprehension of most of us, having never experienced a conflict of this nature. I'm grateful as well for the active interest and attention by my parliamentary colleagues on this issue.

I thank you for taking the time away from your families and summers to be here with me in Ottawa, where I have been for the balance of the summer, to discuss this most important issue that has captured world attention. My appearance before this committee affords an invaluable opportunity to detail the government's extensive efforts to, firstly, protect Canadians, respond to humanitarian needs in Lebanon, promote sustainable peace in the Middle East, and finally, articulate the way forward from our perspective. The safety and security of Canadians is of the utmost concern to the government.

Put simply, there is no higher priority or obligation upon a nation. The safe return of Canadian citizens was the pure motivation and goal that we undertook from the beginning of this crisis. For this reason, extensive efforts were undertaken to meet the urgent needs of all Canadians seeking to flee the deteriorating security situation and return to Canada. I am very proud of the work undertaken by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and numerous other departments, including CIDA, DND, Citizenship and Immigration, Public Safety, and the Canada Border Services Agency.

We continue, to date, to do everything we can to assure the safety and security of Canadian citizens and contribute in a positive way to the crisis in the Middle East. We continue to do so efficiently and safely, and the conduct that we have seen throughout this evacuation has been nothing short of extraordinary on the part of Canadian public servants. I applaud the heroic efforts and the extraordinary exploits of the dedicated members of the public service who made this evacuation happen.

I witnessed first-hand the best example a minister could possibly experience of public servants putting the service to Canadians at the highest level. My appreciation and admiration for them could not be overstated. I have been involved in this file from the beginning, and I've spoken directly to officials throughout. I've engaged with my counterparts in Lebanon and Israel, colleagues from the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and others--a host of nations that have been involved.

I've attended briefings with the task force that was set up in the operations centre in the early days of this conflict, spoken with our ambassadors and officials in country and out of country, and intervened on a number of personal cases and heard directly from some of the victims as to the impact that it was having on their lives. I've met as well with members of the Arab, Lebanese, and Israeli communities here in Canada and heard their stories. The Prime Minister was similarly engaged and personally involved, in one instance, in the evacuation of citizens from Cyprus.

(1025) Suffice it to say, there were many Canadians in need of help, and our government, given the enormous challenge of the distance, the number of citizens, and the assets in the region--which I will discuss further--responded quickly, effectively, and with compassion and diligence. As you are already aware, this involved putting in place the requisite mechanisms and capabilities to accommodate an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon. This evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon is by far the largest effort ever attempted in our country's history: 13,052 Canadians were evacuated.

All but a very few are currently back on Canadian soil. This was the second largest evacuation by any country--the first being the United States, where only half of U.S. citizens have currently returned. The third largest was France, with approximately 8,000; Australia with approximately 5,000; and the United Kingdom, 2,300. To put this into context, 500 Canadians were evacuated from Southeast Asia in the aftermath of the tsunami, 200 were evacuated from Côte d'Ivoire when the crisis erupted in West Africa in 2005, and even fewer were evacuated from the Cayman Islands and Haiti in 2004.

This evacuation of over 13,000 Canadians to date from Lebanon represents an initiative several times larger in scale and scope than all of those prior four operations combined. No other country, except for the United States, has taken more citizens out of harm's way and returned them to safety, without casualty or injury, I might add. The United States took out 1,000 more and had aircraft carriers at their disposal. Countries like Brazil and Sri Lanka, with populations of foreign nationals in the country similar to ours, have evacuated far fewer.

A series of interrelated factors compounded the considerable challenges that this huge operation presented.

They include as follows: the rapid deterioration into a rolling and continuous war zone; the Israeli sea blockade, which created a 12-hour window to move ships in and out of Beirut harbour; basic road, bridge, and airport infrastructure damage, which included the Beirut international airport and for all intents and purposes prevented air evacuation without helicopters, of which we had none in the region; the deterioration of communications networks in Lebanon, as many phone lines and radio towers were taken out in the early days; serious capacity shortages in Lebanon's port infrastructure--in other words, only so many boats could dock, and we were sharing limited space with numerous other countries; high international demand for the limited commercial maritime capabilities available for immediate use in the Mediterranean Sea led to a bidding competition with many other countries; the distance between Canada and Lebanon itself being half a world away; and the relatively small size of our embassy in Beirut, which had a complement of staff--nine Canadian-based and locally engaged--which eventually grew to 48, in contrast with the largest resident Canadian community, an estimated 50,000 people, one of the largest of any western country, in Lebanon.

It also involved, as you know, the fluid situation that required the redeployment of DFAIT and other Canadian government personnel within the region. That is to say, we took a number of individuals from other embassies and consulates in the area but had a real logistical challenge to get them in. As I mentioned, we were reliant upon other countries--for example, Cyprus and Turkey--to transport them into Beirut.

There was no Canadian embassy in Cyprus, but an honorary consul; while Mersin and Adana, the two ports that were utilized, were halfway across the country of Turkey, where our embassy is located in Ankara, again requiring challenges necessary to draw down on Foreign Affairs personnel in the region to bring them to those two locations. (1030) [ Translation ] Moreover, at that same time as Canadian officials were exerting maximum effort to coordinate a massive operation, the security environment was rapidly evolving. Parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon and northern Israel were becoming veritable war zones.

The crisis was deepening rapidly in an unpredictable fashion. In this context, Canadian officials in Lebanon, Israel, across the Middle East and in Ottawa were mobilized to respond as efficiently and effectively as possible. [ English ] No one, not even the Lebanese government, foresaw the events and the violence erupting so quickly or taking such great consequences for civilians as we saw in the last three weeks. The chronology of events that follows serves as a useful outline for the actions undertaken and the issues, logistic and otherwise, involved in Canada's evacuation.

For several years, Hezbollah has been launching rockets into Israel. They stepped up that violence intentionally, and with the purpose of provoking Israel. On July Hezbollah, a listed terrorist organization, attacked Israel, killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two others after crossing a UN-established border in the south of Lebanon. They provoked a country that had seen similar attacks from Hamas just weeks earlier. Israel responded to the provocation by launching air, ground, and naval offences. Our actions began immediately. We contacted all embassies.

I might note that all embassies do have evacuation plans, but certainly not ones for situations of this magnitude. The airport, as you know, was closed almost immediately as a result of bombing raids that destroyed the runway. Air travel, which is the normal route for evacuation, then became a closed option. Less than 24 hours after those initial incidents, on July 13, a travel warning for Lebanon was issued, and relevant information was posted on the Internet to apprise Canadians of the evolving and dangerous situation on the ground inside Lebanon.

During this time, I remained in constant contact with departments and officials and monitored events. The following day, on July 14, a decision was taken to convene a departmental task force. On July 15, the crisis call centre and a full interdepartmental task force were put into operation, involving departments across government. These included the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, CIDA, National Defence, Citizenship and Immigration, Public Safety, and Canada Border Services Agency. Inquiries and assessments as to the available modes of transportation began at that time. At that point, Mr.

Chair, repeated messages to Canadians were being conveyed from multiple channels, both in Beirut as well as back home in Canada. Internet, calls, and a warden system began in earnest. A warden system, I should explain, involves volunteers in Lebanon who literally go door to door to bring information to areas of the country that are less accessible or that may not have the same degree of Internet or telephone capability. On July 16, airplanes were chartered and contracts signed with evacuation vessels harboured in ports on the Mediterranean.

Now, with the requisite capabilities identified and an evacuation plan in place, the evacuation began in earnest. Turkey and Cyprus were acting as the staging points for onward travel; that is to say, this was a two-stage process: after evacuation from Beirut, there was a necessity to then arrange for air travel back to Canada directly. It was during this time that the focus was on communication with Canadians inside Lebanon and their families in Canada--not the media or the broader public--and on securing the capacity to evacuate.

On July 17, the embassy in Beirut began to contact individual Canadians to inform them of the evacuation plan. By this time, the number of registered Canadians had doubled, from 11,000 to 22,000. That number would eventually approach 40,000 by the end of this past week. Both the Prime Minister and I were actively engaged throughout these initial stages, including direct consultation, as I mentioned earlier, with our Israeli and Lebanese counterparts to require and request their assistance for safe passage of Canadians being evacuated from Lebanon. The initial evacuation of Canadians began on July 19.

Over the course of the next week and a half, over 13,000 Canadians would be moved to safety. The initial delay, I might add, was the result of clearances sought from the Israeli naval blockade. We had received assurances that we passed on to the ships that we had contracted from the private sector. They sought further assurances; they were not satisfied with the initial documentation that we provided from the Israeli army. We sought those further assurances and received them, and I made a call to the Israeli foreign minister at that time to gain further assurance. The following statistics, Mr.

Chair, demonstrate the sheer magnitude of this operation: our call centre received and responded to more than 35,000 calls and over 12,000 e-mails in the three-week period beginning July 13. At the height of the evacuation, 5,000 phone calls per day were being made by Canadian officials to our citizens in Lebanon, to help pass information and provide them with the information necessary to expedite their evacuation.

(1035) Further, to support the evacuation, 358 officials were either redeployed from Ottawa or reassigned from abroad to embassies or consulates in Beirut, Cyprus, and Turkey to assist Canadians in transit, including from DFAIT, 150 from DND, and from Immigration and CBSA. Many of these officials remain on the job on the ground in the region today to support ongoing efforts, because as you know, this evacuation is not complete. For DFAIT alone, this deployment was more than five times larger than the tsunami crisis, which was the most recent experience, where we deployed DFAIT officials in two weeks.

I would add that it was done during a period of rotation, meaning that the standard change in personnel in the field was under way and a number of officials were on vacation. Many of those officials, I'm proud to say, returned to the job. Many volunteered and came off vacation time to spend time in the operations centre. It clearly required a large number of officials flying out to the region with a few hours' notice, and people were working around the clock at all locations. Serious concerns for officials' health and well-being were expressed by many, including the Prime Minister and me.

To support the 24/7 operation crisis centre, 175 DFAIT employees volunteered their services. Many worked astronomical hours on an overtime basis. I have to say on a personal note that I bore witness to the incredible spirit of patriotism and commitment to the safety of Canadian demonstrated by those officials. [ Translation ] In addition to departures by ship from Beirut, we have also conducted an evacuation operation in order to bring people out of the port of Tyre in the south of the country, where the situation continues to be of great concern.

Unfortunately, due to the difficult security situation, only a small number of Canadians were able to reach the port. [ English ] Canada was instrumental in evacuating others, such as Australians, Ukrainians, Africans, and Americans, who wanted to leave Lebanon, in what is indicative of the role our country is playing on the international stage. There was great cooperation between nations in this exercise. When others asked for help, we were there. Similarly, some of those countries I've named and others helped Canadians.

I want to repeat that the success we've achieved in mounting this tremendous undertaking is due in large part to the Canadian public servants, who responded to the call of duty with remarkable professionalism and dedication. I want to express my gratitude to the hundreds of members of the Canadian public service, including those in my department, who put in tireless hours for the safe return of Canadians. Their efforts under challenging and often volatile circumstances and conditions merit our utmost respect and recognition.

Canadians have every reason to be proud of the work they did in helping fellow citizens to safety. Canada is also tremendously grateful to Cyprus and Turkey for their invaluable assistance in supporting the evacuation. I've expressed that to the foreign ministers of both of those countries, whom I saw recently in Rome. We also thank the governments of Israel and Lebanon for their efforts in allowing safe passage of our citizens out of Lebanon.

I would like to turn our attention now to the humanitarian needs. (1040) [ Translation ] Since the onset of hostilities, Canada has expressed deep concern regarding civilian casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the growing number of internally displaced persons. We joined with our G8 partners in St Petersburg and I went to Rome last week to call for urgent efforts to address the humanitarian impact of the crisis.

We have urged Israel to exert the utmost restraint and seek to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. [ English ] We have also been a strong advocate for the safe and unimpeded access of humanitarian personnel to facilitate the delivery of immediate humanitarian relief to Lebanese in need. One of our vessels was used to assist Doctors Without Borders ship urgently required medical supplies and equipment to Lebanon on July 29. I am aware of numerous offers of personal assistance from Canadians, as well as provinces, who have expressed a desire to assist in the humanitarian aid relief.

To date, Canada has announced that it will provide $5.5 million to respond to pressing humanitarian needs. This was announced in advance of the international donors' conference request from the UN coordinator, Jan Egeland. Your next witnesses from CIDA will be able to address the specifics of Canada's humanitarian relief efforts in more detail. Overall, however, the international community's humanitarian response must be accompanied by parallel efforts to achieve a sustainable and permanent ceasefire.

In this regard, Canada fully supports the G8 summit declaration that emphasizes the importance of a cessation of the actions, which destabilized the region, and identifies a progressive plan of action, to which the Prime Minister was a signatory on behalf of Canada on July 16. The plan, Mr. Chair, which we continue to support with our partners in the international community, includes a call for Israeli soldiers to be returned unharmed, and for an end to the shelling and rocket attacks on Israeli territory, and to the casualties Israeli civilians have suffered.

We also believe that the utmost Israeli restraint is needed to avoid, as far as possible, civilian casualties. The responsibility for the protection of civilians and humanitarian workers is an obligation that must be fully respected under the international humanitarian law. There has to be a ceasefire, Mr. Chair. Canada has participated in multilateral efforts to put an end to the violence, to find a diplomatic solution that is fair and equitable, and to encourage more dialogue. We are, and remain, in close contact with our allies and all countries seeking a solution.

I attended the conference in Rome of the expanded Lebanon Core Group at the invitation of the co-chairs, the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Massimo D'Alema, and the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Canada was given an important voice at the gathering, and the statement that emerged reflected the consensus of participating nations of a further expression of Canada's position--specifically, a determination to work immediately, with the utmost urgency, towards a ceasefire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities.

From the very beginnings of this crisis, Canada has pursued a dialogue to advocate a path to peace that will last. We've seen quick fixes and temporary solutions in the past that would not suffice, and history has proven this to be the case. Certain conditions must be achieved to reach that stable, durable cessation of violence in the region. (1045) [ Translation ] In our view, a ceasefire needs to be lasting, permanent and sustainable. Ordinary Israelis and Lebanese have suffered long enough.

Their desires are simple, almost basic -- the freedom to lead their lives without fear; the ability to move forward, finally, with confidence; and the security Canadians have come to expect and enjoy. The Lebanese people should not be held hostage to the extremist actions of an organization designated by the United Nations as a terrorist group. Hezbollah and its supporters should respect the desire of ordinary Lebanese to lead normal, secure lives. [ English ] Mr. Chair, we realize that the violence we have witnessed in recent weeks is part of a more complex and challenging scenario.

Any lasting solution in Middle East tensions must be regional. This principle was recognized in Rome and at the G8 and has been the basic premise underlying efforts directed towards resolving the conflict and building peace in this troubled part of the world. Clearly, the Government of Lebanon has to be an integral part of the solution, and yet alongside our allies and partners we continue to call on all regional actors to contribute constructively to achieving this objective.

In particular, we have urged those with influence over Hezbollah and their backers in Tehran and Damascus to persuade them to heed the international community's appeals. Finally, Mr. Chair, the way forward: We believe the bulk of the evacuation operation in Lebanon has been completed, yet we remain fully committed to facilitating the departure of further Canadian citizens who choose to leave. We will continue to support efforts to address both the immediate humanitarian situation as well as Lebanon's longer-term reconstruction and development. And it will be significant.

I was reminded again as I entered the room that there are now over 800,000 displaced people inside Lebanon. The G8 statement reflects exactly our prognosis and our evaluation of the situation and what got us to this point in time. The ceasefire is one element of the action plan that is called for in that G8 statement, but it is not the first thing or the only thing called for. An eventual ceasefire is part and parcel of the resolution, and the statement calls on all leaders and countries and parties to take a series of actions to resolve the crisis. Let me be clear.

It's not our intention to shift the blame from the extremists who caused this violence and who want it to continue. Hezbollah—listed in this country as a terrorist organization, a terrorist army—which is the party that started this crisis, has a minimum obligation to now cease its actions, its assaults on Israeli positions, and return those soldiers. Everyone agrees there has to be an end to the bloodshed and the carnage in Lebanon. It appears there is no one who wants this to continue, with the exception of the terrorists. They initiated the violence and they oppose peace in principle.

The untold suffering of the people in both Lebanon and Israel is heartbreaking, shocking to everyone's sensibilities, Mr. Chair. The killing has to stop. The recent Rome meeting and the UN's mandate to address this crisis confirmed the commitment of the international community to resolve this crisis. It's important to state here that there's a marked difference between a democratic country defending the lives of its citizens and a terrorist army intent on death and destruction. We will continue to advocate diplomatic, constructive solutions. Words and wishful thinking will not end the violence. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Merci .

(1050) The Chair : Merci , Mr. McKay. We will proceed to the rounds of questioning, beginning with the official opposition. I remind you that you will have 10 minutes in which we will try to keep to very strict timing. The first round will be split between Mr. Patry and Mr. McTeague. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [ English ] I want to ask you first whether the minister will remain with us till 11:25, just to be sure that all parties get to question him. The Chair : Mr.

Minister, I know you have other commitments and I know your schedule, but because of the late start here, can we ask you to stay as long as possible—keeping in mind, though, that we do break at noon? Hon. Peter MacKay : Mr. Chair, I will stay as long as you want me to stay. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Patry. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Patry : Thank you, Minister. [ English ] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Minister, welcome. I'm going to start with one piece of information. October was our finest hour of diplomacy, when Lester B. Pearson helped to solve the Suez crisis.

This was the time of our greatest contribution to world peace. Then there was the creation of the casques bleus , the blue berets, which we're so proud of. [ Translation ] I'd like to begin by reviewing the chronology of events. [ English ] Since that time, [ Translation ] Canada has moved away from its traditional peacekeeping role in the Middle East, which restricts its ability to assist all affected parties in this region to work together to achieve a lasting resolution. [ English ] You say that on exactly July the conflict started, and on July the evacuation started. That was a week later.

I must tell you there were signs. I was in Morocco at the beginning of July, talking with my Lebanese colleagues and members of the Parliament of Lebanon. There were signs at that time that something big was coming in Lebanon. Were you aware before July that something was coming? It's quite important for the evacuation plan, because a week to start an evacuation is much too long. Something should have been done before that. It was great to have a crisis cell, but it was not fast enough, according to us. Did you ever think of going through Syria?

A lot of other countries--Switzerland and Brazil--passed through Syria. We have an embassy in Syria and they could have helped us. I'm not saying the only route was through Cyprus, but why didn't we also choose to go through Syria? You also stated that the ceasefire is one element of the action plan called for in the G8 statement, but it's not the first thing. What will make you change your mind and ask for a ceasefire? There have already been three weeks of conflict, with hundreds of civilians killed on both sides and devastation of the country.

We're seeing right now a moderate Arab country, moderate Lebanese, changing their minds. What are you waiting for to call for a ceasefire? Before you do an exchange of prisoners or anything else, you need to start at the beginning, and the beginning is a ceasefire. Merci. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Patry. Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : 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.

(1055) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. You have about four minutes, Mr. McTeague. Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.) : Minister, thank you for being here today. I want to also convey my deepest appreciation to the colleagues beside you: Robert Desjardins, Peter Boehm, and of course Helen Harris, with whom I've worked over a number of years. Minister, you will no doubt know that the distance between Beirut and Damascus is a mere kilometres. A number of Canadians could have chosen that route.

In fact, I'm looking at the Reuters factbox from July 20, 2006, and it suggests to me that a number of other nations had their evacuation plans in place long before Canada and were already putting those evacuation plans into effect. My specific concern is with the first statement that you made in writing here. You said, “The safety and security of Canadians is of utmost concern to the Government. Put simply, there is no higher priority” or obligation of a nation. If that were the case, Minister, where were you for the first four days of this crisis?

Why did you simply show up for work on the Sunday, when this crisis began on Thursday? Why were you not talking to your embassy in Beirut, which could not possibly take those calls that you had suggested here on the Sunday and the Saturday--messages to Canadians--when in fact that embassy was closed? And why were you not telling loved ones and Canadians how to contact, rather than relying on a website to convey that message?

Minister, it seems to me that your party, and you in particular, perhaps as a result of directions by your Prime Minister, were so severely bogged down in micromanagement that you couldn't make a decision other than to take sides in this particular tragic issue. It's unfortunate today that you have offered condolences; it's taken this committee to do this. Minister, in a simple question that I think you could have understood, given the tragedies that existed last year, where were you? Why were you missing in action? The Chair : Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : Well, I was on the job, Mr. McTeague.

You may have been on television, but I was meeting with officials, speaking with officials, participating in the planning of an evacuation--the largest exercise ever undertaken by a Canadian government. That plan did not sit in a filing cabinet at the Lester B. Pearson Building. It took a great deal of time and effort and involved participation of many departments to put in place. Countries closer in proximity and with aircraft carriers, helicopters, and equipment available to them to act quickly were in a much different and, I would say, more advantageous position.

With respect to your first question, about the preferred route through Syria--and I believe Mr. Patry referred to that as well in his question--an assessment was made on the ground by officials in Lebanon that this was not a safe route to travel. There was passage by some Italians, and several Canadians were included on that bus. They made their way down the road to Damascus and came under heavy fire. Fortunately, nobody was killed, but the assessment was made by our officials there that we would not send Canadians by bus down that road to Damascus.

Other countries came to us, in fact, to work collaboratively to remove people by the seaport of Beirut, and that's the decision we took.

(1100) Hon. Dan McTeague : Mr. Minister, my appearance on television was to do your job, to give that 1-800 line, to give to Canadians an opportunity to actually contact the department. Minister, I note that there is some coincidence in the fact that you appeared only later to announce the death of eight Canadians. Many of us here we have to wonder, since your Prime Minister knew at the G8 that the conflict in the Middle East was the number one issue, when you actually clued in to the fact that you had an obligation right from the get-go. It's not good enough to put something on the Internet and a website.

When were you planning to communicate to Canadians how to contact their government and implement the evacuation plan? And on that score, Mr. Minister, when did the Prime Minister actually allow the plan that had been prepared by this department, notwithstanding the fact that the airport in Beirut had been bombed? The Chair : Thank you, Mr. McTeague. Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : Well, Mr. Chair, we communicated immediately with Canadians. We communicated with those most affected--those inside Lebanon, and family members here. As I mentioned previously, the number of calls was overwhelming, to say the least.

In fact, we received over 35,000 calls over the period of time, and as I mentioned, they ramped up from the very beginning. The initial contact we had was approximately 11,000 people--that is, citizens living inside Lebanon. That doubled in the first week and continued to go up in both phone calls and e-mails throughout this crisis. As for the Prime Minister's involvement, I haven't heard anybody question whether Tony Blair was involved in the British decisions that were made around their evacuation. Of course he was. It's the same for George Bush. Angela Merkel was absolutely involved.

And our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was of course involved in the largest issue of our time, participating at the G8 summit with other world leaders, just as I was involved with my colleagues in the meetings in Rome and throughout this period of time, speaking to them directly via telephone while I coordinated efforts here in Ottawa when this crisis began. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. We will go to Madam Lalonde, 10 minutes. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister, for coming here.

First off, I feel compelled to say that Prime Minister Harper's initial statement to the effect that Israel's response to the kidnapping of the soldiers by Hezbollah was measured was shocking and outrageous. His words continue to reverberate widely. The impact was all the more shocking considering that a Montreal family lost eight of its members shortly thereafter. I know that the events in Qana compounded matters further.

Minister, you're quoted in this morning's edition of Le Devoir as saying this: “Infrastructures in certain regions of Lebanon, particularly in the south, have been destroyed.” Minister, why do you not support the many countries who are calling for an immediate ceasefire? That's the first question to which I would like an answer. I'll respond later. [ English ] The Chair : Merci, Madame Lalonde. Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are for an immediate ceasefire. We want to see the cessation of violence. But it's not enough to just say the words; there has to be a plan that follows.

There has to be, in my view, a robust international intervention that is going to stand between these factions. There has to be a plan in which we see some movement, I would suggest, on the part of Hezbollah to return kidnapped soldiers. There has to be a plan that is going to assure the longer-term stability of the region. Simply mouthing the word “ceasefire” is not going to make it happen.

As far as the tragedy, and the toll, and the destruction that has been inflicted upon civilians, inflicted upon in particular the innocent people in Lebanon, are concerned, I hope you're not suggesting, and I don't think anybody in this room would suggest, that any government would favour that type of devastation. And the family members—and I've spoken to the family members in Montreal—are victims in every sense of the word. Their loss is something that, unless you've experienced it yourself, you can't appreciate. And I don't pretend to be able to say that I've ever experienced anything like that.

But I expressed to them, in the most personal way I could, the Canadian government's and my own condolences for what has happened. I think in the context of the statement that you've referred to, made by the Prime Minister, it's important to note that he made that statement on his way to the G8 summit, in St. Petersburg, at the very start of this conflict. At the end of that international gathering he was a signatory on behalf of our country to a statement that specifically calls for the cessation of violence and a ceasefire. That is Canada's position. (1105) [ Translation ] The Chair : Ms. Lalonde. Ms.

Francine Lalonde : Thank you, Minister. You mention this conference, but we can't forget that in this country, the press was reporting that Mr. Harper was isolated and was forced to change his position, a position that he alone maintained. I wanted to point this out because you continue to state that action is warranted. Of course that's true, but an immediate ceasefire is also needed. Otherwise, those -- I say those because there are people on both sides -- wishing to achieve the objectives of war will continue to act as long as they have the support of countries like the United States and Canada.

International pressure must therefore be brought to bear for both sides to agree to an immediate ceasefire followed by political negotiations with the parties involved. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : I agree with you. The task that the United Nations, specifically the Security Council, now has before it is to bring about a negotiated solution, to bring about a ceasefire that has to involve all parties. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Lalonde : Immediate. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : Yes, we can say the word “immediately”. We can say it repeatedly. [ Translation ] Ms.

Francine Lalonde : That means something. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : It doesn't make it happen. Obviously there has to be the participation of all parties. There has to be, in my view, a willingness and a commitment from both sides in this conflict to make that happen. Let me remind you, Madame Lalonde, that we are dealing with terrorists. We are not sure who speaks for Hezbollah or whether they would even begin to keep their word in a ceasefire.

The difficulty throughout this entire period has been that when there is any indication on the part of Israel that they are going to pull back, we see an increase in rockets going into a sovereign state. Lebanon, on the other hand, is caught in the crossfire. Its government, its people, more importantly, are the victims of this. In the past, as you know, resolutions have come from the UN Security Council, resolutions that have been debated at the United Nations, which called for the exercise of sovereign authority over all of Lebanon.

Resolution calls for the disarmament of all militants, which would include Hezbollah. Again, it is not simply a matter of words, resolutions, or international calls for the cessation of violence; there has to be participation by those who are involved in the actual killing there. In my view, the willingness of one party to simply state that a ceasefire has to occur is one thing. I agree with you absolutely that a ceasefire has to occur. Putting those words into effect is something entirely different and something more demanding. [ Translation ] Ms.

Francine Lalonde : I'll turn the floor over to Maria. [ English ] The Chair : Madame Mourani, you have approximately three and a half minutes of question and answer. [ Translation ] Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I don't want to talk about terrorists. I want to talk about the Lebanese and Canadians who are still trapped in Lebanon. I want to discuss very specific cases because my riding office was transformed into a kind of evacuation unit. Take, for example, the Adhmad Roueida family. Mrs. Rouedia is pregnant.

Along with her five children, she walked from Aytaroun to Tyre to catch a boat because all vehicles, including Red Cross vehicles, had been bombed by Israel. Sir, since you have drawn up a range of plans, what do you intend to do to help those still trapped in villages in southern Lebanon, the children, the pregnant women, the elderly who are without their asthma puffers or the insulin to treat their diabetes? Hon.

Peter MacKay : Thank you for your question. [ English ] What we intend to do is what we've done throughout this time, and that is to provide safe passage to people who, through our embassy, through our contacts, through the people--volunteers in many cases, particularly in the south--who pass that information on to us, have expressed the desire to leave . Unless we have some form of contact with them, we can't know of their pain, their suffering, and their fears. Nobody has cornered the market on compassion in this.

I have felt the fear; I have talked to people who have returned from Lebanon, and I've heard the horrific stories, as have you. I suggest all of you around this table have talked to people directly affected by this. We have, in my view, undertaken every effort available, every means available, to get people out. There was an exercise that involved-- (1110) [ Translation ] Mrs. Maria Mourani : What is your plan for southern Lebanon? Kindly answer the question. [ English ] Hon. Peter MacKay : If you would, just let me finish. We put in place in the past a plan that put a ship into the port of Tyre.

It was a small number of Canadians who showed up, despite our best efforts to contact people within that region. As you know—and I'm stating the obvious here—the damage to infrastructure, the havoc that has been wreaked in the south, has made many people simply hunker down in their basements. They're not in contact with anyone—their neighbours, let alone the Canadian embassy—so to reach them is extremely difficult. To send people into that region to provide assistance is very difficult.

We have sought, I have personally spoken to the Israelis about, a ceasefire that would allow for a period of time to get evacuees from the south out. The Biqaâ Valley is another specific area near the Syrian border where there was a large number of Canadians whom we tried to help with the evacuation. We also made early efforts, I'm reminded, to bus people out of the south; that is, to provide passage to Syria by road. Because of the damage to those roads, people like this woman you've described, with her family, would have been given passage to Syria on a bus.

The challenge is to contact people, to have the ability to know who they are and where they are. Many of the members of Parliament sent specific references to our office, which we acted upon. I'm grateful for any further information we receive about the specific location of Canadians anywhere in Lebanon, particularly in the south. The Chair : Very quickly, Madame Mourani. [ Translation ] Mrs. Maria Mourani : I understand what you're saying, but I have to wonder why it is American convoys are getting into southern Lebanon and managing to evacuate US or Australian nationals.

Why is Canada unable to reach an agreement with Israel while at the same time, the US has managed to do so and send in convoys? I'm personally aware of two youths and 14 years of age who were evacuated by American convoys from southern Lebanon while bombs were raining down on the region. You're correct in saying that people cannot easily be contacted. They cannot emerge from their underground hiding places because the bombs are falling. Summing up, I think Canada could follow the lead of the United States and go in and rescue these people. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Madame Mourani. Mr.

Minister, respond very quickly. We're already at 11 minutes here. Hon. Peter MacKay : There's an important point to be made. I agree. I think that going forward the international cooperation, particularly in the south, is going to be of critical importance. The Americans have more equipment in the region. We have assisted.... In fact, the boat that went into Tyre brought more Americans and Australians and, I believe, Ukrainians out of the south than our own citizens. Similarly, other countries, including the Americans, have offered to assist in the evacuation. That will continue throughout, I guarantee you.

Again, I encourage you or anyone who has information about the specific location of Canadians in the south who want to leave—and this is a voluntary evacuation—to give us their names and location. I would appreciate her information, because we will see to it that all efforts are made to help with her return to Canada. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : I know, by the way, that you called my office, and I returned your call four times. Mrs. Maria Mourani : No. Hon. Peter MacKay : Yes, I did. It's documented. Mrs. Maria Mourani : No. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I think all of us are very pleased to see that Canada is working with other nations; that if Canadians showed up and it were a Ukrainian or an Australian ship, we would be helped by them; and that in turn we are helping them. We'll go to the government side, and Mr. Van Loan.

(1115) Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me pick up on a similar theme. The.... The Chair : Order, please. Mr. Peter Van Loan : I'll start again, Mr. Chair, and pick up on a similar theme. The Chair : Could we have order, please? Mr. Van Loan, you have ten minutes. Mr. Peter Van Loan : I was hoping to divide my time with Mr. Obhrai and, if possible, Mr. Casey. I had him in mind. I wanted to start by saying that the feedback I've been getting from constituents is that Canadians are pretty proud of what Canada was able to achieve with this evacuation.

It is seen by them as very much a success story. More than 13,000 people were evacuated without mishap, and that kind of evacuation is a pretty remarkable achievement. It resonates a lot with me, because I have a personal family story. My family were refugees from Estonia, and there was no government there to help them when they had to evacuate by the Baltic Sea. They had to pull together their own resources with another family and literally buy a shipping company, consisting of a ship and crew, to get out.

They were on rough seas and they were seasick, but they were pleased and delighted to have been able to escape and enjoy freedom, and ultimately the freedom that Canada had to offer. When I contrast that kind of situation with the tremendous support Canada has given to its nationals, I understand why Canadians are so proud. To underline the success, I want to pick up on what the chair said about the capacity we had and the strength of our operation, the help we were actually able to give to other countries because we had enough capacity to do it and our plans were strong enough.

Could you could tell us more about what Canada did for other countries? Hon. Peter MacKay : Thank you, Mr. Van Loan. I acknowledge what you've said. In the early goings, there were other countries, because of their proximity, their assets—mainly ships and helicopters already in the region—and larger embassy staffs who were able to commence evacuations perhaps 24 hours or 48 hours sooner. We were literally faced with the challenge of securing assets—the equipment, plain and simple—to evacuate people, and that challenge was immediately acute because of the disabling of the Beirut airport.

As you know, this entire operation—and I know we will get to the issue of cost—was done entirely at the expense of the Canadian government, that is to say, of the Canadian taxpayers. There has been no charge, nor any attempt to seek reimbursement from evacuees. Taking people out of harm's way was the right thing to do to, and I believe there is a spirit of generosity running through this country that will affirm that. As you indicated, I spoke to many of the evacuees and to many whose family members were affected, as you have.

Certainly over the past number of weeks we've received hundreds of e-mails expressing gratitude to Canada and, in particular, to the efforts of Canadian public servants who helped in the evacuation. We've also had a number of e-mails from foreign nationals, evacuees from other countries who were taken out of Beirut by Canadian ships, who were attended to by Canadian volunteers or Canadian government employees who helped them. I don't want to take up a lot of time, but there was one woman I spoke to in Charlottetown who was an evacuee.

She told of the difficult circumstances, of the heat and how uncomfortable it was making that crossing, and they had to wait. Upon landing in Larnaca, they were allowed to take only the possessions they could carry. This was a war zone, and those people were facing very trying circumstances; there was a lot of emotion involved. Many people were fearing for their very lives and those of their loved ones. I can understand the frustration they felt.

I can appreciate the immediacy with which they felt they had to leave Beirut, and the gut-wrenching decision it must have been to have to leave behind other family members in some cases, as well as pets and possessions. It was a difficult, life-altering decision, to say the least. For many, that crossing was harrowing. But this woman told me something else. She said she's been going back to Beirut for many years and made that crossing many times. She said many of those crossings in the last 20 years were similarly harrowing, because of the weather, the water, or the boat itself.

We went with the best available boats we could get, we secured them as quickly as possible, and we moved on with an action plan that eventually evacuated over 13,000 Canadians. That was a remarkable effort, and this evacuation was a success, in my view.

(1120) The Chair : Thank you, Minister. Mr. Obhrai. Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Minister. I want to address the question that the opposition member, Mr. McTeague, just asked: “Where were you?” Let me tell you, we don't go on television like you do, running this country, when the crisis is there-- Hon. Dan McTeague: On a point of order, Mr. Chair-- Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear where the minister was. The minister was with me in my riding, talking— Hon. Dan McTeague : A point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr. McTeague, on a point of order. Hon.

Dan McTeague : Mr. Chairman, I think you will find that my questions are not only in order, but unlike Mr. Obhrai, who has part of the position of handling consular affairs, neither he nor the minister were in fact there for the first four days. The Chair : That's not a point of order, Mr. McTeague. Continue, Mr. Obhrai. Mr. Deepak Obhrai : Mr. Chair, I have 5,000 Lebanese in my riding who are extremely concerned. When this crisis took place, they had family members there and they wanted to talk.

The minister took time out in Calgary to come to meet with members of the Muslim and Lebanese communities to assure them about what Canada was doing for them. For them, that was very important. These are Canadians. That is where he was, with me, totally engaged with the people, and that is how the government should run. We cannot ignore our own diaspora out here who were affected by this, and I want to thank the minister for taking time on such short notice to come to talk and assure these Canadians that the Government of Canada was there. So I would like to thank the minister again.

I will now ask the minister how much engagement he has done—we have done—with the local Lebanese who are here and concerned for their loved ones. The Chair : Mr. Minister. Hon. Peter MacKay : I thank Mr. Obhrai for the question. I know that he, and not just during the period in which this crisis has occurred, has met repeatedly with representatives of not only the Lebanese and Arab community, and the Muslim community, but many groups across the country on behalf of the government and on behalf of his own interest in international affairs. I thank him for that.

As far as the necessity to communicate with other groups that were affected is concerned, families in particular who had loved ones displaced or involved in the evacuation, it was an ongoing and in some cases overwhelming task. As I mentioned, there were over 35,000 calls that were coming in. The initial operation, which was receiving calls in Beirut, had to reroute calls to Ottawa because of the sheer volume. With staff in the embassy, it was impossible to field those calls.

There was initially a wait, as you might expect, because of the backup of calls, but when that rerouting started happening in Ottawa, we started bringing more people into the call centre, and the wait times dropped to five minutes within days. As far as communicating directly with the families and with those inside Lebanon is concerned, that was the priority. Getting information directly to them about how they could make their way in the most efficient and expeditious way to Beirut, to the port, for evacuation purposes, that was the priority.

I don't apologize for putting the emphasis on getting people out of the country. Communicating with them directly was the best way that we could do that. We used every available means to do it: phones, the Internet, and the warden system of individual volunteers. You, as well, were involved in setting up a number of meetings that I've had during this period of time in your own constituency. In Ontario, Mr. Casey set up a similar meeting here in Ottawa with representatives who wanted to come and speak about their concerns.

I met yesterday in Charlottetown with another group of citizens, some of whom had returned from Lebanon. And we will continue to do this. This exercise is not complete. That's why the input of you members of this committee, and you, Mr. Chair, is very helpful. Will there be lessons learned from this? Certainly. We did the best we could in the circumstances we were in.

(1125) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Casey, you have about a minute, so please proceed very quickly if you have a comment. Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC) : A minute-- Hon. Dan McTeague : On a point or order, I think the record has to be cleared here, certainly given the testimony that we just heard. If I'm not mistaken, the minister was actually at the stampede in Calgary. I don't know how, and considering what Mr. Obhrai has just-- The Chair : That's not a point of order, Mr. McTeague. Hon. Dan McTeague : Mr.

Chair, on a point of order, if it's possible for him to speak to Mr. Obhrai's constituents, why could the minister not speak to the nation? That's the critical point here that we're trying-- The Chair : All right, Mr. McTeague-- Mr. Deepak Obhrai : On a point of order. The Chair : Another point of order. Mr. Obhrai, let's leave it alone, and we're going to go to Mr. Casey. Mr. Bill Casey : 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 : Thank you, Mr. Casey. Mr. Minister, very quickly, please. Hon. Peter MacKay : 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 : Thank you, Mr. Minister. To Madame McDonough. Ms. Alexa McDonough : 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.

(1130) The Chair : Thank you, Madame McDonough. Mr. MacKay. Hon. Peter MacKay : 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.

(1135) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. Madame McDonough. Ms. Alexa McDonough : 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? Hon. Peter MacKay : 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 : Thank you, Mr. Minister. You have more time, Ms. McDonough. Ms. Alexa McDonough : 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 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?

(1140) The Chair : Thank you, Madame McDonough. Go ahead very quickly, Minister MacKay. Hon. Peter MacKay : 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 : Thank you, Mr. Minister. We'll go to the second round, Mr. Van Loan and Mr. Goldring. Mr.

Peter Van Loan : 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: [ Translation ] “First, it should evaluate the concrete results of measures taken by the Canadian government to evacuate Quebec and Canadian nationals from Lebanon.” [ English ] 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 as the height of Canadian foreign policy. In 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 Americans in the barracks in Beirut. Some of us remember the 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 were killed there, and I think there were 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? Hon. Peter MacKay : 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.

(1145) The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Bernard Patry : I just want to answer Mr. Van Loan for seconds-- The Chair : No, it's coming into your round now. Mr. Bernard Patry : --just about history. I just want to let him know that in 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 : 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. Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.) : 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 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 : I'm going to ask Ms. Guarnieri to pose her question, and then we'll have the minister respond. Hon. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.) : 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 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.

(1150) The Chair : Thank you, members, for those questions. We're trying to keep it within the five minutes, and we're way over here. Mr. Minister, just take your time to answer Mr. Martin and Madam Guarnieri. Hon. Peter MacKay : I'll do my level best. I don't think I could accurately answer all of those questions in five minutes. The Chair : You don't have five minutes. There are five minutes for the questions and the answers. Hon.

Peter MacKay : 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.

(1155) 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. The Chair : Very quickly, Minister MacKay. The last question, I think-- Hon. Peter MacKay : I have one final point.

With respect to the stabilization of the country and the humanitarian relief, I think Canada can play a leading role in that regard, and this includes, of course, emphasis on the protection of civilians and the core element of a mandate of the force that will enter Lebanon, which I think is going to be very much akin to some of the humanitarian relief efforts in which Canada has a great deal of expertise. I'm not saying here today that we are making specific commitments as yet, but we are certainly going to be participants in what the mandate will be.

I think we would be certainly negligent if we were not at the table and being informed of what this international force is going to look like, what its mandate will be, and when it can begin its important work, particularly when it comes to the protection of civilians now and the humanitarian relief that is needed immediately.

(1200) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. MacKay. A very quick question, Mr. Goldring. Just a very quick question. Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Minister, for appearing here today. As a primary purpose of this meeting here was to discuss the evacuation, I personally want to add my congratulations to your department and to the public servants who worked on this.

I think all of us had a chance to interact, whether phoning for particular people to try to locate them, and the cooperation and involvement from the departments involved was just marvellous given the circumstances that were existing at the time. I wanted to ask one question. With the number of ships that Canada had arranged for to evacuate personnel, were there other ships that were arranged for by other Canadian groups or organizations that might have been there to be able to assist?

Were there other Canadian groups or organizations that might have hired ships there too, or were they all organized by the Canadian government? Hon. Peter MacKay : I'm going to defer to Mr. Boehm, who was the individual, along with Mr. Fox and other leaders in this exercise, who made arrangements for the leasing of ships, as well as the important second component, which was the leasing of airplanes to bring Canadians back directly to Canada. In all, there were ferry passages--31 out of Beirut and one out of Tyre--and all individuals were processed either through Cyprus or Mersin, Turkey.

We had seven contracts signed for sea transportation, ten contracts for air transportation. There were flights back to Canada--31 from Cyprus, 21 from Turkey. There were emergency passports issued in this period, which again required a great deal of person-hours to process that exercise. A total of 12,555 evacuees have now safely returned to Canada. Your question about specifics of who we were competing with and how these contracts were arrived at, I think, can be best answered by Mr. Boehm.

But there was competition--fierce competition--bidding, in fact, for the use of the limited number of ships that were available in both Turkey and Cyprus for this exercise. Mr. Boehm. The Chair : Mr. Boehm, go ahead, please, very quickly. Mr. Peter Boehm (Assistant Deputy Minister, North America (and Consular Affairs), Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Foreign Affairs)) : Thank you, Minister. Mr. Goldring, as part of our evacuation and contingency planning, we had contacts already with various shipping companies, and with the charter airlines as well, and it was a matter of activating them.

So when we contracted ships, we had to go through brokers. There were many brokers who were acting for the shipping owners. And we did that obviously by contacting them. They were, of course, being contacted by other countries as well. To the greatest extent possible, we were also dealing with the heads of task forces of the other countries to ensure that we could develop as smooth as possible an operation. And that is why we ended up taking some Australians, a fair number of Americans, etc., and it went the other way as well. The Chair : Thank you.

Madame Lalonde, go ahead, please, very quickly. [ Translation ] Ms. Francine Lalonde : Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us here today. However, before you leave, since we haven't exhausted the subject, I'd like to ask you a question. First of all, what is your take on the fact that in Israel -- I regularly read the newspaper Ha'aretz -- “a Hezbollah victory” is seen as having fairly dramatic consequences for the Middle East?

Furthermore, Israel, a country reputed -- and I believe it's true -- to have the most efficient intelligence service, indeed probably more efficient that the US intelligence service -- has attacked Lebanon, and not Hezbollah, with the kind of force that the vast majority of observers have deemed exaggerated and excessive. Hasn't Israel given Hezbollah, which Lebanon was in the process of demilitarizing, the opportunity to demonstrate that it is in fact defending Lebanon? Mr. Minister, the situation today is far more complex than it was prior to the onset of hostilities. I'll leave you with that.

However, the situation does warrant some reflection, because I'm deeply concerned about your comments regarding a permanent and sustainable ceasefire, in light of what's happening in the region.

(1205) Hon. Peter MacKay : Thank you for your question, Ms. Lalonde. It's very interesting to see you present a reasonable position. [ English ] I'm not going to comment on what information was or wasn't available to the Israeli intelligence or how they telegraphed their moves to Hezbollah. I think the important issue is the necessity on the part of the Government of Israel and its military to play an active role now in securing its own borders and its own national security force. Hezbollah have been acting, as I mentioned earlier, like a cancer.

It has a political wing, members of which are representatives elected to the parliament, and it has that democratic outlet to express its desires for such things as the Shebaa Farms, mentioned by Mr. Martin, and other outstanding issues. That one in particular appears to be one of the greatest motivations it has for its very existence. That does not in any way, shape, or form justify the indiscriminate rocket attacks that have gone on literally since the withdrawal of Israel from the country of Lebanon and the withdrawal, by the way, from Syria.

Lebanon was well on its way when Hezbollah commenced this unprovoked attack on Israel. And so, if there is any wisdom in all of this, clearly it is going to involve support for the Government of Lebanon to finally bring about the actual implementation of Resolution along with several other interconnected resolutions from the United Nations and the resolution of the land dispute over Shebaa Farms. The Chair : Thank you. Madame McDonough, do you have a very quick question? Ms. Alexa McDonough : I'll be very brief.

I'm sure the minister will be aware that the support for Hezbollah in Lebanon has dramatically increased as a result of the bombing of innocent civilians and massive destruction of infrastructure and the threat that still hangs over their heads. Does the minister understand that continuing on that military path is bound to increase and is already showing signs of increasing the support for the other side in this hostility? And in view of the overwhelming evidence of this, why will he not refrain from constantly feeding and fuelling that kind of process?

And secondly, can the minister indicate whether Canada will participate in a military presence —the more immediate the better—to maintain that ceasefire, and if so, in what way and to what extent? Hon. Peter MacKay : Firstly, I'm not advocating violence; I'm not advocating further military action, which you've extrapolated as the reason for greater support for Hezbollah. I don't follow that logic. Canada has consistently looked for ways to make a positive contribution to this process and will continue to do so at every available opportunity, at every forum.

We support the establishment of this multinational force; that much is clear. That's been very much the preoccupation of much of the discussion around what can be contributed to lead to the ceasefire and to make it lasting, to make it durable. Canada, as you know, is already heavily committed in its operations in Afghanistan; we have other commitments to Haiti; we are increasingly looking at the contribution that we can make in Africa, in Sudan. There has been no request for Canada to participate militarily in this international force that is quantifiable.

There has been no mandate set for the international force. There has been no decision taken as to what other countries will participate. Those are all questions that require answers before we could even contemplate what role we might play. In the meantime, I think and I believe, we have demonstrated our commitment already to the humanitarian effort, to the diplomatic effort, and to certainly be participants in the discussion around what the mandate of the international force should be: the timing; what it will be comprised of; what countries will and will not participate; what role NATO might play, if any.

Those are all big, important questions on which the United Nations security force and, I suspect, a group of countries that will include Canada will focus their attention now. As I mentioned earlier, I think you would expect no less than for Canada to be at the table and to help influence, in whatever constructive and positive way we can, what that multinational force should look like and what its role should be in bringing about a lasting, durable peace in Lebanon.

(1210) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Minister. We want to thank you for taking the time today to come on this very important issue. Not just Canadians but the world is gripped with what's happening in the Middle East, and many people, as you suggested, understand very well that loved ones and friends were trapped there in Lebanon. Thank you for coming and explaining Canada's role in the evacuation process, and thank you for taking the extra time. Hon. Peter MacKay : I want to express my thanks to you, to my parliamentary colleagues, for their informed, compassionate, and important interventions.

I commit to working with this committee and with all of you as we go forward. Any and all information about the location—again, I reiterate—of citizens inside Lebanon in need of our help is appreciated. Please forward it to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Chair : We'll do that. Thank you very much. We will now suspend and we will come back at one o'clock. (1212)

(1306) The Chair : Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), we will resume this morning's meeting, requested by four members of the committee, in relation to the current Middle East crisis and the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. We are pleased to have with us here today the Canadian International Development Agency. They will give us their presentation, please. Mr. Bernard Patry : Mr. Chair, on a point of order, this morning we had committee business in the order of the day, and there is none this afternoon. I move that before hearing from the CIDA officials, we go to committee business. Ms.

Alexa McDonough: Seconded. The Chair : So we have a motion that we go to committee business. Mr. Van Loan. Mr. Peter Van Loan : I don't understand why we would do that right now. We're at a point where we want to hear from some witnesses. This meeting was not called by the government; it was called by representatives of all three opposition parties to, first and foremost, hear and take evidence--in the words of Madame Lalonde--on the efforts of the Canadian government with regard to the evacuation. So why would we proceed to committee business before we have heard the witnesses? I find that extraordinary.

I think we should hear them. Secondly, we have a very real concern. We have before us a number of witnesses from CIDA whose time is very valuable right now. They are working on the humanitarian efforts in Lebanon to ensure that humanitarian aid gets delivered and that we help with the crisis there. They've already been kind enough to indulge the committee and wait until one o'clock to deliver their evidence and be away from their other work.

If we're going to have some strange procedural tactic right now that requires them to wait, we are going to have a direct impact as a committee on their ability to carry out their work. We are interrupting their work in delivering that humanitarian aid. So as the agenda calls for and Madame Lalonde's letter requested, I would like us to go straight to hearing evidence on the Canadian humanitarian efforts right now. It's beyond me why we would abandon that through some kind of strange procedural tactic, interrupt their work, and keep them from their work even longer. The Chair : Madam McDonough. Ms.

Alexa McDonough : I agree it's a very frustrating situation we're faced with. I'm sorry to say I think it's of the government's own creation, and I think it's not out of order to say there was no traditional consultation whatsoever with committee members about how we would proceed. The parliamentary secretary, Mr. Van Loan, has just cited for the third time that the purpose of this meeting is to deal with the evacuation question. I was one of four petitioners for this meeting. I made it very clear we were asking to deal with the escalating Middle East crisis, which has many aspects.

I think it's time for the committee to take some shared responsibility--which even in a majority government would happen, never mind in a minority government--to set the course of our work for the rest of the day. The less time we spend debating that, the more time we can allow our officials to get on with their other work. I think this committee has a responsibility to re-establish some kind of order to our proceedings. So far, what we've had is a completely unilateral assumption of responsibility by the chairman.

I guess he accepts responsibility for the fact that some witnesses have been lined up with no consultation with the steering committee. So we're conducting committee business that hasn't actually been put together by the committee. In seconding the motion, I would argue that we move very quickly to deal with some of that committee business and then come back to hearing with great enthusiasm from our CIDA officials, who are doing an incredible job in spite of the horrors they're dealing with.

(1310) The Chair : Just let me, please-- Mr. Peter Van Loan : I happen to take great exception to the characterization of the chair having unilaterally set the agenda of this meeting. The agenda of this meeting was set by the request from the opposition. Madame Lalonde's letter clearly says: [ Translation ] “Second, it should look at ways Canada could contribute to the humanitarian relief effort underway and help the people affected.” [ English ] That is what Madame Lalonde asked that this meeting deal with. That is what the witnesses in front of us are here to deal with.

That is how the agenda of this meeting was established, according to the request from the opposition that set it. I say we came here to do work; you, in the opposition, asked us to do work; let's do the work. Let's hear the evidence. I don't know why we would go into committee business and make decisions before we've heard the evidence. I've never heard of a court of law in a democracy that decides to pass its verdict first and then hear the witnesses later. The Chair : Mr. Van Loan, let me just respond to the...I wouldn't call it an accusation; I give Madam McDonough more credit than that.

For a number of reasons--because this morning's meeting was late starting and because it went past the o'clock time--we did not adjourn. We suspended the meeting so that we could pick up where we were. Certainly, I do not want to cut committee business short. I want to give Madame Lalonde, who I know will be bringing forward a motion, ample time to deal with that. The other point you made was that unilaterally the chair put forward witnesses. There are two things. First of all, all witnesses who applied through the chair were then forwarded to the clerk. I did not screen witnesses.

Every witness, as far as I know, who came in to our office was just forwarded to the clerk as per the norm. It is up to the parliamentary group, the clerk's office, to choose the witnesses. Never has the steering committee picked and chosen witnesses. We pick and choose topics. We bring forward witnesses. If I could pick and choose, if I could veto certain witnesses coming forward, I would suggest that would be a terribly dangerous situation. No, the steering committee does not veto or pick and choose witnesses. We choose the direction that the committee is going, and that's what we tried to do.

The opposition brought forward the parameters of what this committee would be called back on. The researchers and clerks understood the different parameters, and we waited, as you have done always in the past, for witness lists to appear. Maybe I should check with some of my colleagues to see if they sent witnesses to my office, but I don't believe they did. As far as I know, we did forward all witnesses. Mr. Bernard Patry : I just want to pinpoint something, Mr. Chair. First of all, if you had adjourned this morning--

(1315) The Chair : I didn't. Mr. Bernard Patry : No, if you had adjourned this morning, there would be no more meeting this afternoon. One way or the other, we need to suspend, and from the reaction this morning at noon...I say we suspend for two minutes and get to the committee business right now, at 12:05. You decided on the other way. Now you need to take the responsibility-- The Chair : And I will. Mr. Bernard Patry : The second thing is this. I was chair of this committee for many years, and the clerk never chooses the witnesses. It's not the clerk's job to choose the witnesses.

They provide names to the chair, names to the committee, and the standing committee, the full committee, decides who the witnesses will be in accordance with an agreement with all the committees. We have a motion right now to go to committee business because there's none on the afternoon schedule. It was not there. It was there on the morning schedule. We're going to go now; you have a motion, and I ask you for the vote right now. You have a motion to go to the vote right now. The Chair : That's fine, Mr. Patry. We have a speaking list, and this is a debatable motion. Mr. Bernard Patry : No, no, no.

The Chair : I'll refer to the clerk. Mr. Bernard Patry : No, no. I asked for the vote; when the vote is asked for, you need to call the vote. The Chair : Can I ask the clerk for procedural...? The Clerk of the Committee (Mrs. Angela Crandall) : Calling for the question is not acceptable in committee. Hon. Dan McTeague : Mr. Chair, it might be helpful to ask you a simple question, if I may have the floor. I agree, I too am very disconcerted with how this has arrived. Was there in fact, pursuant to the request by the members, a call for witnesses by you? Yes or no? The Chair : I'll have to talk to the clerk.

For myself-- Hon. Dan McTeague : Mr. Chair, if you could answer that question now, I think it would certainly give rise to support for what my colleagues have been saying here--that we ought to immediately go to business. Given that there was no call--I'm going to assume there was no call-- The Chair : Yes, just wait. I can tell you what I clearly passed on to the office of the clerk. I'm not sure to whom I spoke at that time, but what I said was...because at one point in time, we had been requested to have one meeting of the foreign affairs committee.

I spoke to another member; in fact, Madam McDonough called me, and I appreciated it. She said, “Mr. Sorenson, we do not want this thing just to happen in one quick meeting.” I don't think I'm breaking any confidence; I don't know if that phone call was confidential. She said we want to give time for this committee to meet. I won't put words into her mouth, but the idea was that we wanted to have extended time. At one point it was a Monday and possibly a Tuesday meeting. So we asked the clerk's office, Mr.

McTeague, to make sure we had enough people who could be brought forward, whether that would be the departments or CIDA or whoever, and to arrange for that and-- Hon. Dan McTeague : Mr. Chair, I appreciate that, but I also respect the fact that no member— I'm sorry. Can you hear? The Chair : I'll take Mr. McTeague, and then we'll come to you, Mr. Obhrai. Hon. Dan McTeague : I think it's very clear, Mr. Chair, that the request by the members for this meeting, which has been accepted, did not make, in fact, a call for witnesses, nor did you proceed with a call for witnesses.

As such, in order for this committee to properly examine this issue, given the time constraint we have, and honouring what Mr. Van Loan has said—he is very concerned about the time that can be spent by these officials—I suggest we get on with this vote and that we respect the fact that you did not make a call for witnesses and that what you have is a very selective group. Normally, on any other committee—and I sat on this committee, as you did, Mr. Chair—we would take the time through a steering committee to select and go over the names of people.

I'm sure there are probably witnesses here right now, or people who want to be witnesses who could not be here, and I think in fairness to this issue, if we really want to take it seriously, Canadians expect us to be balanced in terms of who we bring forward. Given that there was no call, I suggest you honour what is an obvious answer, and that's that there was no call for witnesses and therefore there ought not to be witnesses. The Chair : There was a call for witnesses, in that we knew we were going to have more than one meeting.

It's the responsibility of the table, I guess, to make sure we have people here to give testimony, and that's what they attempted to do. That constitutes, in my opinion, a call for witnesses. Hon. Dan McTeague : No, it doesn't, Chair, and you've not asked for witnesses. I think there's a more formal way— The Chair : Mr. Obhrai. Mr. Deepak Obhrai : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Both of my colleagues on the other side have talked about being chairs of the committee. They seem to forget we were also part of this committee. When somebody calls for a special committee meeting, which they did....

They went out of their way and they wanted to talk, as Madam Alexa McDonough said, on the important issue of the Middle East crisis, and we agreed. We all agreed. This is important, so let's come forward and let's talk about it. As for the spirit that was given, as per Madame Lalonde's letter, she put forward a motion, which is before us, that they want to discuss. What has happened, from our perspective, is that this thing is turning into a political football right now, whereby they want to score political points by saying these witnesses can come, and those cannot come, and to choose.

They had time, because they are the ones who put the motion forward, and should have attached a list of witnesses, as you have rightfully pointed out. What I'm saying is that in the spirit of cooperation, because the crisis is going on, we need to discuss this. People are watching us, so let's hear what CIDA has to say, to give people an idea, and let's hear the witnesses who are here and get their point of view. Then, if they want to have additional witnesses, they are more than free to call them or whatever they want to do.

But to say now, at this juncture, when we've all come here and this is televised, no, we don't want to talk to these witnesses after the taxpayers have already paid for them to come here.... Just let's listen to everybody. Let's get to what we want. Let's hear from CIDA, let's hear from the witnesses, and if that does not satisfy the committee members of the opposition, nothing stops them from calling in more witnesses later on. In that spirit, I say let's move forward.

(1320) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Obhrai. To clarify one thing, I want to make sure the opposition understands what is on the agenda here. We're not proposing that everything be pushed back until after the witnesses. We're proposing that we listen to CIDA and then do committee business as per what we have on the agenda this morning. It's not that we're going to push committee business right back to the very tail end of the day. It's that we have an opportunity to hear CIDA, so we have ample opportunity for committee business, for Madame Lalonde's motion. I recognize Madame Lalonde. [ Translation ] Ms.

Francine Lalonde : Mr. Chairman, on July last, my colleague Diane and I took it upon ourselves to request that the committee be convened , in accordance with one of the two rules of procedure whereby committees may be convened when the House is adjourned. We made it clear that we wished to discuss the following three topics: the evacuation, humanitarian relief and the crisis itself. You deemed it best that we take the second approach to convene a committee meeting, namely that we collect four signatures. Therefore, in addition to our own signatures, we collected those of Alexa McDonough and Bernard Patry.

You ultimately agreed to call a meeting. This isn't the first time that I've resorted to this approach. I did so during the crisis when Iraq was attacked. As I recalled -- and I verified the facts -- when the Chair receives a request of this nature, he must convene the committee which then decides whether or not to consider the motion and if so, how. The committee also decides then whether or not to hear from witnesses.

In this particular instance, the following request was ultimately made: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), we the undersigned members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development request that you convene at the earliest opportunity a meeting of the committee to discuss the tragic events in the Middle East. To be honest, Mr. Chairman, it was neither my intention nor that of my colleague to undertake a lengthy study of the situation. Rather, it was our wish to draft a motion for consideration by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

We maintain this position. I have a great deal of respect for those who wish to testify, but if we go down that road, then we will have to be fair. I for one have not called anyone. To my knowledge, there are very few Quebeckers, despite their keen interest in this crisis, who would be prepared to appear, unless it was a last minute decision on their part. In an emergency situation, the committee should use this valuable time to endeavour to adopt a majority position. Later, we could pursue or complete our study on Lebanon or the Middle East. However, we cannot hear from witnesses in a fair and equitable manner.

That would take a great deal of time. In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development mustn't waste any time on this. I stand by my position which hasn't changed since I requested a committee meeting. (1325) [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Madame Lalonde. Madame Folco, go ahead, please. [ Translation ] Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) : I believe that's all. [ English ] The Chair : Madame McDonough, go ahead, please. Ms.

Alexa McDonough : I certainly don't want to use up the time of the committee repeating much of what my colleague Madame Lalonde has said, but I'm very concerned--and I don't mean this as a point of order, but only as a point of discussion--that only part of the exchange I had with the committee chair on Friday was brought forward to the committee. I'm sure it wasn't his intention, but I called precisely because I got a notice of meeting with a list of witnesses on it, and my instant response and reaction was that this represents a very narrow range of interests.

It's not that they're not legitimate voices to be heard--I don't say that for a moment--but they are not broadly representative. It's not a comprehensive list, and in fact, most of the witnesses on there are clearly identified with a small, fairly well-defined position. I'm not talking about our officials. Let me make it very clear. The Chair : What position? Ms.

Alexa McDonough : My argument was that if there are going to be witnesses—and I wasn't prepared to hear from witnesses who looked very much as though they represented one particular set of interests—I was not prepared for us to hear witnesses unless and until we had a more balanced, broadly representative range of witnesses. We don't have that now. I think what we should do is spend a few minutes in committee to decide where we go from here. I greatly value and respect the time and the testimony of our CIDA officials who are here with us, and the Red Cross officials.

I think we should then go back to dealing with the longer-term plan for what we're going to do. But let's be fair here. I'm very concerned that the clerk's office will get scapegoated, much in the same way as the Lebanese are getting scapegoated by people taking up one side of a position. When I contacted the clerk to say I'm concerned about this very narrow range of interests that have now been confirmed as witnesses, with no consultation, I was told that the clerk simply contacted the people he was instructed to contact by the chair. I don't want to see the clerk's office scapegoated in this.

But I think what we have to do, as we always have a responsibility to do, is to come up with a broad, representative set of witnesses on this occasion and any other occasion when we're dealing with issues. Since the very point of the overwhelming concern about the government's position is that it's unilateral, that it's narrow, that it doesn't take into consideration the vast complexity and range of interests involved, we don't need to turn around in an all-party committee, especially in a minority government, and repeat that sin. The Chair : Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Let me make it very clear, there was no solicitation. I submitted the names of those who came forward. I did not screen to see who.... You know what? I don't think I have met any of the witnesses ever, and I may be proven wrong, but they were forwarded as I felt all opposition parties were submitting. Mr. Bernard Patry : Mr. Chair, you're debating about witnesses. That's not the idea. We're not debating about witnesses. We have a motion that is going on. The Chair : No, Madame Lalonde was first. I'm sorry. Madame Lalonde. [ Translation ] Ms.

Francine Lalonde : Marleau-Montpetit notes the following: A committee may wish to hear testimony from private individuals, represe