[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 25, 1996
.0910 
[English]
The Chairman: I'd like to call the meeting to order, please.
If you recall, this meeting was organized to have a briefing on the situation in the Middle East. We have four witnesses from the department, of whom one is from CIDA. We have Mr. Laverdure, who's been with us before, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Middle East; Mr. Robinson, the director general of the Middle East peace process; Ms Gibson, the director of Middle East relations; and Mr. Ward from CIDA.
Thank you very much for coming.
I just remind members that several members had suggested it would have been appropriate to have either diplomatic representatives from the countries involved or even representatives from the Lebanese and the Canadian Jewish Congress. We were not able to organize anything along those lines, but we'll have a quick discussion about that when we have finished this session.
I understand there's a vote later. I don't know whether the vote bell starts at 10:30 a.m. for a vote at 10:45 or whether it's a vote at 10:30, but we'll keep you advised.
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): I think it's 10:15.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The bells will ring for 30 minutes.
[English]
Okay, so the vote is at 10:45 a.m. We will keep that in mind.
[Translation]
Mr. Laverdure.
Mr. Claude Laverdure (Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa and Middle East, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): First I would like to thank you and say that I am very pleased to be here with you this morning. The subject on the agenda is very important and deserves our full attention, and I am delighted to see that the members of the committee have expressed the wish to obtain more information on this issue. I will make a short introductory statement, and then I and my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
I would also ask you to be patient with me, as I shall try not to fall asleep in front of you, which would not be very polite on my part, but I have just arrived from London. I am therefore suffering from jet lag. However, together with our ministers I attended meetings on issues related to the Middle East which will be of interest to you.
I am accompanied by a few colleagues who are particularly well informed and highly competent, and will be able to help me in answering your questions.
First, I would like to talk about the most recent developments in the Middle East and their impact on the current peace process. I would also like to talk about Canada's role in the peace process.
First, we should consider recent developments. I will focus on those of particular interest to you. I should say a word about the Sharm el Sheikh summit, the present meeting of the Palestine National Council, the elections in Israel, and the conflict between Israel and Hizbollah.
[English]
First of all, let me turn to the summit we had in Sharm el Sheikh about six weeks ago. We all know about the tragic events that led to the Sharm el Sheikh summit; i.e., between February 25 and March 4, suicide bombers struck in Israel, killing some sixty Israeli civilians.
In addition to Prime Minister Chrétien's public statement condemning these attacks, both the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy wrote to their Israeli counterparts to express Canada's sympathy to the people of Israel and outrage over the terrorist attacks. Minister Axworthy also wrote to Rais Arafat to encourage him to do all in his power to prevent further terrorist attacks.
As a practical step in preventing further terrorist attacks in Israel, Minister Axworthy decided to provide Israel and the Palestinian Authority with funds to purchase Canadian-manufactured bomb detection equipment. Canada is only the second country in the world to provide such assistance.
In the aftermath of the horror witnessed on the downtown streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, many Israelis understandably questioned not only their own personal safety but also the peace process itself. Today, as Israel and the Hizbollah engage in a ferocious exchange of artillery, once again victimizing innocent civilians, we would do well to recall the words and images that emerged from Sharm el Sheikh.
.0915
Regional and world leaders, including Prime Minister Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy, united in their condemnation of terrorist attacks against Israel and in their determination to continue on the road to peace. The Sharm el Sheikh summit dramatically illustrated Israel's acceptance by the Arab world, not only those countries that have made peace with it, such as Egypt and Jordan, but also those that have yet to formalize their peace.
In all, fourteen Arab countries were represented at Sharm el Sheikh. We agreed there to pursue three objectives: to enhance the peace process, to promote regional security, and to combat terrorism. We also recognized the economic hardship Israel's harsh security measures were causing to the Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza.
Another important element of the Sharm el Sheikh summit was the creation of a working group, open to all summit participants, to pursue the objectives outlined above. This working group met in Washington on March 28 and 29. Our focus then and since has been to develop a series of recommendations for consideration by foreign ministers on how to implement the objectives established at Sharm el Sheikh.
Since the summit, Canada and the international community have also taken action to address the deteriorating economic conditions in the West Bank and Gaza. An emergency meeting of the ad hoc liaison committee responsible for coordinating assistance to the Palestinians was held in Brussels on April 12. I would be very pleased to answer your questions on those two meetings. I attended the two, in Washington and in Brussels, with some of my colleagues.
Since the Declaration of Principles was signed on the lawn of the White House in 1993, Canada has committed $70 million in assistance to the Palestinians. We recognize that economic development in the West Bank and Gaza is crucial to Palestinian support for the peace process. Palestinians quite rightly must have confidence that the peace process offers them the hope of economic prosperity.
Our assistance has been directed at helping the Palestinian Authority build the necessary institutions of civil society. In the face of the economic hardships caused by the closure, Ministers Axworthy and Pettigrew are now considering how best Canada can assist the Palestinians, but we are also addressing the causes of this hardship.
While recognizing Israel's legitimate security concerns, we have indicated to the Government of Israel Canada's concern over the effects of closure and have encouraged Israel to take additional steps to lift that closure.
[Translation]
I would like to talk briefly about the meeting of the Palestine National Council. Given the events of the past few weeks, it would not have been particularly surprising if Prime Minister Perez and Yasser Arafat said they were disappointed and did not wish to pursue the process. However, both men clearly stated that they intended to pursue the implementation of the agreements concluded and to work towards a permanent agreement.
As you know, one important issue was to amend the Charter. We were pleased to see yesterday that the Palestine National Council approved this amendment by a large majority. This was a historic event, and now both parties can look to the next stage. This was an important step.
The minister issued a press release on this subject yesterday, a copy of which will be sent to you today.
As a result of this vote in the Palestine National Council, it is possible that discussions may resume immediately. They will now no doubt focus on the other complex issues that remain to be resolved.
.0920
[English]
We expect these to be lengthy negotiations. This agenda includes the most difficult issues, as you know: the status of Jerusalem; the future of Israeli settlements; Palestinian refugees; and the border between Israel and the Palestinian territory. It is not our place to prejudge the outcome of these negotiations. Instead, we restate our objective, which is a just, lasting and comprehensive peace for the region.
[Translation]
In view of the elections in Israel which will be held on May 29, and although final negotiations are scheduled to begin in early May, we cannot expect to see any significant progress or change over the next few weeks. The Israelis will first have to choose a government. However, what does seem encouraging to us is that the two major parties in contention have indicated that peace was one of their main objectives.
Therefore, we firmly hope that the discussions, which will resume immediately after the elections, will lead to a successful conclusion.
[English]
Let me turn my attention now to the present conflict between Israel and Hizbollah. Our immediate concern is to end the current fighting in northern Israel and southern Lebanon. During the past two weeks over 150 people have been killed, the vast majority of them innocent Lebanese civilians. One week ago today, almost 100 Lebanese refugees were killed in an Israeli attack on a UN base. Prime Minister Chrétien has stated that Canada views such attacks as deplorable and unacceptable, and has urged all parties to agree to an immediate cease-fire.
Foreign Minister Axworthy has made clear Canada's views in letters to the foreign ministers of Lebanon and Israel. Minister Axworthy has also met with representatives of the Lebanese community to hear their concerns. On our minister's instructions, officials in our department met with the ambassador of Lebanon and the Israeli chargé to present Canada's views.
On April 18, Canada also stated its views during the debate in the UN Security Council. On both occasions we underscored two fundamental principles: Canada's support for the security and well-being of the State of Israel and our support for the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon and UN security resolution 425. We believe the peace process provides the best opportunity to achieve these principles and to bring lasting peace and stability to the region.
I would now like to turn my attention to the important contribution Canada is making to the peace process. Canada has four basic objectives in the Middle East: to promote a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict; to advance Canada's trade and economic interests in that region; to secure greater understanding by Middle East government decision-makers and opinion-formers of Canada and of our views of international trade and finance issues; and to contribute to the orderly development of states in the region, including the promotion of good governance and respect for human rights.
I'll confine my comments today to what we are doing with respect to the first of these goals, the promotion of a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, the other objectives are important parts of our policy, and I would be happy to address them in response to any questions.
This committee is well aware of Canada's record and credentials of even-handed concern about peace in the Middle East. We were actively involved in the UN deliberations that led to the passage of resolution 181, admitting Israel into the United Nations. We are very concerned with the rights and needs of the Palestinians. We played a role in the creation of UNRWA and have been a major donor to UNRWA from the beginning. The first commissioner general of UNRWA was a Canadian, Howard Kennedy.
Thousands of Canadian troops have played their part in peacekeeping in the Middle East. We have contributed to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization since the beginning. In 1956, as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we played a prominent part in defusing the Suez crisis, with Prime Minister Pearson being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the creation of the concept of peacekeeping with the first United Nations emergency force in the Sinai. Since that time we have participated in every UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East, and in some of the non-UN ones.
.0925
The importance we attach to international law and international consensus is universally recognized. It is particularly well-known and appreciated in the Middle East that Canada will not be a party to efforts to impose solutions. Our friendship with Israel, for example, has not deterred us from speaking out, when appropriate, in defence of international law or agreed-upon standards like the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention.
The international concern and engagement of Canadians was recognized when, in 1986, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees granted its Nansen Medal to Canada and the Canadian people in recognition of our work on behalf of refugees and displaced persons. Against that kind of background, Canada undertook what I think should be regarded as a major diplomatic initiative in Middle East affairs when we accepted, in 1992, to take on the chair of the Refugee Working Group in the multilateral track of the Middle East peace process.
It was not a particularly high-profile initiative. In fact, the entire multilateral side of the peace process has tended to be a low-key affair. Some call it the stealth peace process, one that has largely taken place out of the limelight and behind headlines. However, this initiative has put Canada among the handful of countries that play leading roles in the management of the Middle East peace process. As you know, the U.S.A. and Russia are the co-sponsors, while Japan and the EU have been designated as co-organizers. Canada joins this select group, along with countries from the region, on the steering committee of the multilateral process by virtue of our role as chair of the Refugee Working Group.
As the multilateral process tends to work behind the scenes, with the eight plenary meetings attended by forty or so countries, Canada's chair has not made the headlines of the international press in the way the bilateral Middle East peace negotiations have. Nonetheless, Canada's role has been very visible within the process and is very much appreciated within the region. As a result, our profile in the region is perhaps as high today as it was at the time of Lester Pearson's involvement in the Suez Crisis. When there is a breakthrough in the peace process and a signing on the White House lawn, Canada's foreign minister is a prominent participant, one of a small number of foreign ministers from outside the region who are officially invited.
You will recall in that regard the signing of the September 1993 Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, often referred to as Oslo I. It provides, along with the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994, the fundamental basis for future progress in the peace process. Canada strongly supported these agreements in all their stages.
In December 1995, Canada chaired the plenary of the Refugee Working Group. It brought together over forty official delegations from China and Japan to Israel and Saudi Arabia, to the U.S., the United Kingdom and France. The meeting was marked by an unprecedented spirit of cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, reflecting the determination of the participants to reinvigorate the peace process in the wake of the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Rabin just one month before our meeting took place.
At that plenary meeting, a number of countries announced new assistance projects aimed at providing the real and tangible benefits of the peace process to the Palestinian refugees. The plenary also mandated a number of what we call intersessional activities, or meetings and missions and conferences, to take place before the plenary meeting.
While there have always been plaudits for the Refugee Working Group's accomplishments in mobilizing concrete assistance for Palestinian refugees, sometimes important progress is also achieved just by the process itself. For example, an agreement to hold a meeting in which Arabs and Israelis participate together, even on a politically non-controversial subject like public health, gives momentum to the process. It also often constitutes a real step forward. The alternative, as we have seen, too often can be confrontation and violence.
.0930
The multilateral track of the process, where Canada is active, has played a critical role in maintaining momentum and then destroying that momentum in the aftermath of crisis. This is generally easier to do on the multilateral track, which tends to be non-confrontational, than on the bilateral track, where regional parties confront each other in high-profile and what often appear to be zero-sum negotiations.
When the bilateral process is at an impasse it is usually the multilateral process that leads the recovery, bringing together the parties in a setting where the pressures are less intense, allowing them to test ideas and often break that impasse. We have just seen a good example of that, where Canada had a role to play. An impasse arose at the beginning of this year, when terrorist incidents in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv effectively suspended progress on the bilateral track. The Israelis were unwilling to participate in any peace process meeting, even on the multilateral side. The Refugee Working Group's calendar of activities had to be postponed. However, after intensive contacts with Israelis and Palestinians, with our embassy in Tel Aviv taking the lead, the regional parties agreed to participate in an interim consultative meeting of the Refugee Working Group in three weeks' time. Other working groups are also resuming their activities.
This type of exercise in confidence-building on the multilateral track, aided by the Sharm el Sheikh process, is playing an important role in keeping the peace process alive. You will have noted that Arafat and Perez have now agreed to begin the permanent status negotiations in May, as scheduled, notwithstanding the most recent setback resulting from Israeli actions in Lebanon.
Let me turn more specifically to the substance of Canada's leadership role on the multilateral track as chair for the Refugee Working Group.
Multilateral working groups have been constituted to deal with five central issues. These are arms control and regional security, environment, regional economic development, water resources, and refugees. Canada is a strong participant in all of them, and all of them are important and politically controversial.
In the arms control group, Canada plays a key role as mentor for maritime confidence-building measures. In the area of water and the environment, CIDA projects have helped improve the management of water resources and the assessment of the environmental impact of development.
The economic development group has been a forum bringing together economic financial trade and development assistance throughout the region. It has also acted as a forum where Canada can identify opportunities for future involvement.
The Refugee Working Group is recognized, however, as being the most politically controversial. No other group must confront so directly the deep-rooted sense of loss and vulnerability among Palestinians, as well as the highly emotional positions of principles held by both Israelis and Arabs about historical justice and achieving an equitable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is recognized by all that no comprehensive solution is possible without a solution to the refugee issue. In meetings of the Refugee Working Group we have not tackled these issues head on, but we have kept a dialogue going. We have also given the international community an instrument with which to demonstrate its financial as well as political support.
The working group has mobilized its members to implement some 136 projects, valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to improve current living conditions of refugees and displaced persons in the West Bank and Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan without prejudice to their rights and future status. The question of their rights and future will not be settled by the Refugee Working Group. It will be an issue, in the case of the West Band and Gaza, for permanent status negotiations scheduled to begin next month.
The working group has been associated, however, with a great deal of work designed to clarify some of the basic issues involved and establish conditions conducive to constructive dialogue. As permanent status negotiations begin, the group will put itself at the disposal of the negotiators with a view to providing whatever assistance can be helpful.
The future status of refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan is more uncertain. As Lebanon and Syria do not yet participate in the Refugee Working Group, they have not been directly associated with our work. This is a loss for the working group, for the two governments, and particularly for the Palestinian refugees resident in these countries.
.0935
The situation of refugees in Lebanon is of particular concern. In that regard, the members of the working group led by the shepherds responsible for individual teams have put a great deal of effort and resources into practical assistance projects aimed at improving the living conditions of refugees in Lebanon.
Finally, I would like to add a word about an important new initiative the working group is undertaking in the West Bank and Gaza. The initiative is an attempt to be forward-looking, to focus on what the needs of Palestinians will be as they establish themselves in the West Bank and Gaza and consolidate self-government. We call it adaptation, a process of adjusting to the rapid process of change and upheaval that has resulted in the wake of new returnees coming to the area, elections and the formation of a government, and changes in the ways UNRWA delivers its services.
The pace of change is not slowing down. Our adaptation initiative is designed to help residents of West Bank and Gaza keep up with that change and particularly ensure that the most vulnerable do not become victims of the process.
[Translation]
In another area, Canada played an important role in organizing the Amman economic summit, and Canada is already participating in the steering committee to organize the Cairo summit.
We have been actively involved in establishing a regional development bank which should begin operations in 1997. Canada will be one of the governing members of this bank.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Canada has made a significant contribution to the peace process and that we should not expect any easy solutions. In any negotiation, the final stages are often the most difficult and demanding.
In any event, we will continue to support the process, which, I must admit, will have to overcome difficult obstacles in order to achieve its ultimate goal, that is a lasting peace.
We will be pleased to answer any questions you might have and hear your comments. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laverdure. If I understood correctly, although you are the person who made the presentation, you and your colleagues are available to answer questions on behalf of the government.
Mr. Laverdure: Mr. Chairman, you asked me to introduce the officials accompanying me.
Andrew Robinson is the Director General responsible for the Middle East peace process; Barbara Gibson is the Director for Middle East Relations; Rich Ward is a Director General at CIDA with responsibility for North Africa and the Middle East.
The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Laverdure, I am a little puzzled as regards to your presentation.
First, I must say that it was an excellent presentation. You provided us with a good overview of the situation in the Middle East and the Canadian position in this regard.
As you know, this meeting was requested as a matter of urgency, in view of the conflict taking place in southern Lebanon. The conflict is of particular interest to us, and we are well aware that all the components involved are interrelated. We are particularly concerned at present about the situation in Southern Lebanon.
You have presented the traditional and recent position of the Canadian government on the conflict in that part of the world. You also spoke about the fact that Canada chaired the refugee committee. In the House last week and the week before, the Minister of Foreign Affairs offered all sorts of reassuring statements on the Canadian position, on the measures taken by Canada, and on what is involved in concluding a peace treaty between the parties concerned as quickly as possible. However, the fighting is still going on. Southern Lebanon is still being shelled by Israeli artillery and planes. There is nothing to indicate that the situation is improving.
.0940
Can you tell us what is the situation to date regarding bilateral or multilateral discussions and has any progress been achieved in negotiations? Can we hope that the conflict will be resolved soon? Amidst all the current diplomatic activity, what is Canada's specific role?
Mr. Laverdure: When you ask me if I can summarize the situation, I would have to answer that I cannot necessarily do so much better than you could. The additional information I have comes to us from our heads of missions in the region and our contacts with colleagues from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world, as we try to determine what progress they are making in the efforts they have undertaken.
In my view, progress is being made in the current discussions, which are taking place primarily between Jerusalem and Damascus through the US Secretary of State and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs.
However, when we try to obtain more precise information, to determine what the next stages will be and particularly when exactly the fighting will stop, we find that even friendly countries tend to keep their cards very close to their chest, are unwilling to provide us with more information for fear of a leak or one of the parties withdrawing or refusing to continue negotiations because certain new information has been made public.
Canada remains willing to become involved in the peace process on a multilateral basis. We correspond with the ministers of Foreign Affairs and the heads of government of the parties involved in the conflict, and we maintain our position that any lasting solution must be based on negotiations and on attacks and counter-attacks. We have made it clear to the parties involved and to those seeking a solution that we remain available and willing to assist where it is felt that our specific contribution might prove helpful.
We are available and we want a fair and equitable solution, but at present we are not one of the two or three major negotiators working with the parties involved.
Can we be optimistic? I must say that some days we are. Sometimes we are optimistic for hours or days, but like you we also see that these hours and days are lengthening. However, Canada is available to make a contribution. For the moment we are not involved in direct negotiations.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask two very short supplementary questions.
As regards Canada's role in the current negotiations, is the group of countries which took part in the Sharm el Sheikh summit involved in any way in the current process? Secondly, in view of the very active role played by Hizbollah in the conflict, are diplomatic or political approaches currently being made to the government of Iran?
Mr. Laverdure: In answer to your first question, as you know the ministers of Foreign Affairs of the countries which took part in the Sharm el Sheikh summit were to have met on Monday of this week in Luxembourg. Mr. Axworthy and I were going to Luxembourg, taking the opportunity to attend some other meetings on the way. However, it was considered desirable to postpone that meeting for a few days since it was generally agreed that the atmosphere was not conducive to a 29-country discussion on such a complex issue.
If the meeting had taken place, I certainly think we would have dealt with the issue. But the objectives of Sharm el Sheikh at the time did not include a discussion on events which occurred subsequently.
Therefore, we are continuing our dialogue with the main countries involved in the Sharm el Sheikh summit, but outside the context of the summit itself.
.0945
As regards the role of Iran, Canada has maintained a dialogue up to the present time with the Iranian authorities, which is something our European colleagues have also done but the United States has not.
When we meet with the Iranian authorities here in Ottawa or Teheran, we take every opportunity to express to them our displeasure and our serious concerns regarding the support provided by Iran to Hizbollah and similar organizations.
Such a dialogue is of course difficult since the Iranians refuse to accept that there is any direct involvement and talk in terms of a religious war. However, the discussion is ongoing and we take every opportunity to communicate to the Iranian authorities our concerns and our displeasure with this style of foreign policy.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I don't understand the principles here, but I'm a little bit concerned about the delicacy of our diplomatic reaction to what I would describe as Israel's overkill in the present conflict. As usual, they have gone in with a sledgehammer to kill a fly.
We were very quick to condemn the suicide bombings; we did so in no uncertain terms. Not to put too fine a point on it, the best way I could describe our reaction would be wishy-washy. What do we have to gain by taking this stance? Why is it in our national interest not to be more even-handed in this particular conflict? I feel like the apocryphal Irishman who said, I know we're neutral, but who are we neutral against? If we're truly going to maintain our neutrality here, then why are we apparently being neutral against Hizbollah?
Ms Barbara Gibson (Director, Middle East Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Maybe I can respond to that, Mr. Morrison.
The Chairman: Don't bring Irish politics into this.
Ms Gibson: Certainly the Israeli government is very clear on our concern. I think the Prime Minister's statement stands on its own. It condemned the attacks. Yesterday or the day before we voted at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva to condemn the human rights violations in southern Lebanon.
I think we're on record with both the Canadian public, through our statements and what our elected representatives have said in the House, and the Israeli government. Certainly, in votes in the UN, we supported the resolution that was passed last week in the Security Council. At this time we're not members of the Security Council, but we said publicly that we supported that resolution that was passed.
I wouldn't say we were neutral in the sense of Switzerland. I think we've always had a policy on the Middle East where we support the right of parties to self-defence and their own legitimate national security and the right to some kind of enduring peace for all the peoples of the Middle East.
Mr. Morrison: I understand that we have supported these multilateral gestures, but what I really was wondering was why we couldn't come down a little harder on a bilateral stance. I'm not suggesting that we should involve ourselves in the affair; far from it. But don't you think we do speak with a little bit of authority in this world?
I come back to my original question. Why are we not taking a stance? What have we to lose by taking a stance? What do we have to gain by not doing so?
Ms Gibson: Perhaps I can just say that after our Prime Minister's statement last week, a Syrian newspaper quoted the French and Canadian statements as being very forthright. I think our voice has been heard in the region. I know that sometimes it sounds sort of like ``diplomatese'', but I think the parties in the region know where Canada stands. We're very clear about our support for UN Security Council resolution 425, which speaks to withdrawal of Israeli troops and to Lebanese independence and territorial sovereignty. Our foreign minister said that in the House.
.0950
In our view, we are on record in the region, as well as with the Canadian public, about where Canada stands on this issue.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morrison): Thank you.
Madam Beaumier.
Ms Beaumier (Brampton): Thank you.
I would like to continue along the lines of what Mr. Morrison said. I admire his calm and his cool, and I apologize in advance for sounding a little accusatory in all of this.
When the attack occurred in Hebron, it was considered an unfortunate incident, and I think that's how it was dealt with by the world...that it was a few fundamentalists. I believe that we appear to be operating in a very hypocritical manner.
When I was fortunate enough to go to Palestine and spend a week in the beach camp in Gaza, I was extremely moved by the enthusiastic support of the Palestinians. In the Gaza area there was a 98% turnout for the vote. That vote wasn't because they wanted to see.... Arafat was so charismatic that he drew them out. It was a vote in the confidence that the peace process would work, and even though they didn't feel they were getting a wonderful deal, they wanted peace and they trusted Canada. They really believed that we cared.
I was also fortunate enough to be able to visit a human rights centre there. The very sad part of this human rights centre was that they were then talking about the human rights violations being committed by Arafat in his efforts to stop Hamas.
After the attacks the borders were shut down, but two attacks occurred even after the borders were shut down. Closing down the borders does not.... I don't know what the Israelis expect or what the world expects from the Palestinians, when we take them and.... We have created a new source for violating principles in order for Arafat to seek out the Hamas members. I just don't know what we expect from these people.
First of all, they believe that Canada cares, and when they see a weak response to what's happening.... I believe you are negotiating and expressing Canada's concerns internally, but even the Canadian public...and I'm not talking about the Arabs in Canada. I'm talking about Canadians who see in the paper what's going on and who are asking why Canada isn't being more forceful in fighting for the rights of the people who are being oppressed. Canadians don't understand.
Just briefly on Lebanon, we see that when 150 people are killed then we stand up because we believe that human life is the ultimate. But look at the targets in Lebanon. The targets are the roadways, the power facilities...it's as we did in Iraq. Our big thing in Iraq was to blow up their power stations so we could set them back 50 years.
In light of the fact that we're trying to be very diplomatic, are we going to commit to rebuilding these highways and to rebuilding the power infrastructure systems, or are we going to just ignore the fact that a nation is being set back 30, 40 or 50 years in their development?
Mr. Laverdure: That's a long question.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, you don't have a long time to answer, because I have a lot of other questioners. There are several points there. Perhaps you could comment. Thank you.
Mr. Laverdure: Maybe I could just make a few comments, Ms Beaumier. You raised the issue of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the situation of those now living in southern Lebanon.
To confirm again what Mrs. Gibson just said, we are seen as caring people who are fair and who are working hard to achieve a durable peace. That's right, and we have to maintain that reputation, and we have to keep working at it.
.0955
It's interesting. Whenever we travel - be it Andrew Robinson or myself or Rick Ward - I think our Canadian compatriots would be surprised to see to what extent we have easy access to Rais Arafat and all of his ministers and the rest of them. They want to discuss with us. They want to tell us what their new and future needs are. They want us to get involved, and we do, through the ad hoc liaison committee and through our embassy. We try to meet new demands and circumstances and I think we react quickly.
We have indicated, especially back in January when we had a meeting with all of our colleagues to work on the economic situation in the Palestinian territories, that of course it's much easier to help them along the road of reconstruction without the closures. We said this clearly.
We have told our Israeli friends that they're making not only the lives of the Palestinians difficult with these closures but our lives as well, because the money we had put aside and the projects we had in mind are not sufficient any more. The situation has changed dramatically because of the closures. At the various meetings we took part in we told the Israelis, in very clear terms, that maybe there's another way of protecting themselves and that maybe they should open up a bit, because we can't pay for the consequences of those types of decisions all the time.
We try to face new situations regularly. We try to adapt to new circumstances. To me that is better than just being unnecessarily critical or trying to put the blame on one particular group of people or on one particular individual. If we do so, I'm afraid it will not change much of anything, and we will still have to face the question of trying to help our Palestinian friends develop their own territory and show their own people that they were right in coming to these peace agreements.
As you saw, for a Palestinian or for a Palestinian family, for the time being the proof that they were right in signing these peace agreements is not there. Their economic situation has not improved much. To the contrary, because of the closures maybe it's getting worse. We try to accompany them and we try to indicate to those who make the progress more difficult to achieve that there might be other ways of achieving the same results.
Ms Beaumier: But I think there's a difference, and I think this is what Mr. Morrison and I are both alluding to. ``There might be another way of dealing with it'' is how we speak to the Israelis, and ``That is absolutely horrendous, unacceptable, we will not tolerate'' is how we speak to the other side. I am a politician, but I believe I speak what many Canadians are feeling as well.
Mr. Laverdure: Mr. Chairman, I just have a reminder. I think when our Prime Minister said that what was happening was totally deplorable and unacceptable, that was clear. I suggest that few western partners have used these words.
[Translation]
Ms Debien (Laval-East): Good morning, Mr. Laverdure. In your presentation you said that since 1993 Canada has provided approximately $70 million in assistance to Palestine, which went to Palestinian institutions. What were the institutions involved? What is this money used for? Are there Canadian or local NGOs working in Palestine? Are these NGOs supported by CIDA?
.1000
Mr. Rick Ward (Director General, North Africa and Middle East, Canadian International Development Agency): We have several forms of assistance, provided through multilateral organizations such as the World Bank. We directly support NGOs in Gaza and on the West Bank, and also through Canadian organizations.
That is what we refer to as the Canadian fund. This tool has been used for quite a long time to support small Palestinian organizations on the ground. This helps us to develop very good relations with the NGOs.
We have also provided support to other organizations such as the Organisation canadienne pour la solidarité et le développement. We supported the construction of a community centre in Gaza. These are just a few examples. The largest projects concern water and sewage systems in Gaza and Rafah.
We have provided considerable assistance to refugees by continuing to help with the construction of houses and also wages for health and education workers. I have documents in English and French describing the assistance we have provided in Gaza and on the West Bank.
Ms Debien: When you talk about assistance to Palestinian institutions, I see that as possibly meaning bilateral assistance going directly to the government concerned. You mentioned the example of assistance for developing the infrastructure of health services. Is that what you are referring to when you talk about assistance to Palestinian institutions?
Mr. Ward: Yes, but I forgot to mention an organization such as the Canadian Public Health Association. We work with the Palestinian Public Health Association so as to assist all the organizations working in the area of health care. We do not provide capital assistance, but technical support for the establishment of such institutions.
Mr. Laverdure: If I may, I would just like to add that I mentioned support to Palestinian institutions. As you no doubt know, these institutions are currently in quite a sorry state.
There are two ways of supporting them, either directly, or by our contribution to a fund established to support the Palestinian authorities, if only be helping with the wages of people working in the Department of Justice, the police and school teachers. There is a significant shortfall here.
Last year, there was a deficit. There will be an even greater deficit this year because the borders have been closed. We contribute a certain amount of money so as to enable these institutions to operate reasonably. We are also available to the Palestinian authorities when they express the need to establish structures which would be better managed and built on a more solid basis.
For example, we have tried to help with the Coast Guard. We have some experience in this area. We have tried to train people by bringing them to Canada or by sending our instructors there.
There is so much to do and everyone can make a contribution. Canada is trying to specialize in terms of institutions and infrastructures. As Mr. Ward pointed out, that's why we chose water, sewage systems and, as regards institutions, education and health.
[English]
The Chairman: Merci. Mr. English.
.1005
Mr. English (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The topic Ms Beaumier raised in passing about the difference in terms of the economic situation there I think is quite a relevant one. We talked about the aid, but in the case of the Middle East, Israel is now quite a prosperous country. It's had very high rates of growth in recent times. I haven't been there since I was elected, but I was there before. It is the recipient of large amounts of aid from the United States, which is the process of Camp David.
Of course, Gaza and the West Bank, and for that matter southern Lebanon, are considerably poorer. And when you have this juxtaposition of what is really extreme poverty with what is First World wealth, it inevitably causes conflicts quite apart from the historic problems that occur there.
The amount of aid we're giving is $70 million, which I suppose is all right, although there have been problems in delivery, as you said.
On the very much broader question, we recently worked out a trade agreement with Israel, which I gather is a free trade agreement that would parallel the American free trade agreement with Israel. That's quite an unusual step for Canada to take. We're trying to extend NAFTA to Chile.
Were there any linkages made in our negotiations with Israel in terms of broader questions of economic assistance for the Palestinians? Do they have any advantages from this free trade agreement with Israel? Is there any way that the West Bank and Gaza benefit from this particular economic agreement, which is in Canadian terms quite a step forward and an implicit approval of the State of Israel?
Ms Gibson: Perhaps I can try to respond to that.
At the time that our negotiators finalized the negotiations - which have not yet been signed, but the text is fairly clear - we had indicated to the Palestinian Authority that we would be interested in extending this to the West Bank and Gaza if that was in their economic interest. Because it's an economy, as you've said, that's very much dependent on Israel, there's a lot of overlap, as well as with Jordan.
Mr. English: Yes. What surprised me when I was there - and this may have changed, because I haven't been there, as I said, for three years - was that they can grow oranges and fruits that are not allowed to enter Israel. I can go on, since there are many examples of that type. There are tremendous limitations on their economic activity in terms of this very rich bordering country.
I wondered whether we approached the Palestinians. What did we say to the Israelis about the economic relationship that should involve the Palestinians in this particular pact?
Ms Gibson: Under the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles, the Oslo I and Oslo II agreements, I would guess there are, at a minimum, 25 committees set up to deal with these kinds of questions. So they have an ongoing dialogue about the security issues, economic issues, water issues.
They have a very close relationship in terms of negotiating, because in a sense to allow the West Bank and Gaza to become economic entities, they have to separate to some extent. It's really up to them to work out their economic relationship in a new way, no longer as being an occupied territory but as being someone who's taking control of their own authority.
We're not part of those negotiations and finalizing arrangements. They're still going on. They're the kinds of things that they do regularly, on a day-to-day basis.
What we've done is offer to the West Bank and Gaza, to the Palestinian Authority, to extend the Israeli FTA. We haven't finalized those discussions yet. It is not necessarily in the Palestinian Authority's interest to have that arrangement, and they want to make up their own minds, separate from the Israeli free trade agreement.
I should point out that we have negotiated the Israeli free trade agreement in Canadian interests. It's good for our business community to have freer access to, as you pointed out, a market with enormous growth rates. So we did that, if I can say so, not out of any gift to Israel; that was from a hard-nosed sense of what's good for Canada and Canada's economic prosperity. We've negotiated that, and there've been some bumps in the road exactly because we want to make sure it's a good deal for Canada. That is the only reason we negotiated it.
.1010
The Chairman: Can I interrupt you, Mr. English ?
When we were in the West Bank and in Israel in November, I thought I understood that in fact there were specific plants right in the West Bank that would be furnishing goods into Israel that would automatically have access to the free trade agreement - that in fact there was already an economic linkage there. I don't think it was textiles. I think it was high-tech products or something like that. I may be mistaken. Do you have any information on that?
Mr. Ward: Yes. In fact, as part of the overall peace negotiations at some of the meetings Mr. Laverdure mentioned, the various donors, the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have negotiated the establishment of about five free industrial zones.
The Chairman: That's what I was thinking of.
Mr. Ward: The Israeli government is supposed to be providing, at least in one case, the power, roads, telecommunications and other infrastructure in order to attract international investors to produce products for export, primarily. I guess the interest there is to create employment in Gaza and West Bank, which is one of the greatest needs.
The Chairman: This would be along the model of the maquiladoras in Mexico. It's the same idea.
Mr. Ward: There's the same type of thing in Southeast Asia, etc.
Mr. English: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Ward: Things were fairly far advanced on one free trade zone. Particularly the European Union has indicated an interest in providing support for these industrial zones. Unfortunately the events in Israel and the border closure brought a number of things to a stop. As you can appreciate, it's difficult to get goods and services into and out of Gaza and the West Bank. That has been a constraint for all aid programs. The hope now is that things are starting to pick up again.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): I have a couple of questions.
First of all, Iran has about 35,000 troops in Syria. What is the involvement between the Hizbollah and those troops? Are they training them? What about that situation?
Mr. Andrew Robinson (Director General, Middle East Peace Process, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Certainly Hizbollah have to receive their weapons and supplies from somewhere, and it is quite clear that they are receiving them through Syria. The Syrian support for the Hizbollah activities in that sense constitutes one buttress for what they're doing.
On the other hand, the Syrian presence in Lebanon is not directly in the areas where Hizbollah are operating, and I'm not aware of any reports of Syrian involvement in training of Hizbollah.
Mr. Mills: What sorts of negotiations are going on with Syria? Obviously they could influence Hizbollah and probably push a cease-fire a lot faster if they wanted to. It appears that we have Syria posturing. They're important and they know their important role. What's being done to bring them to the table?
Mr. Robinson: The fact that Secretary Christopher is in Damascus so much on this trip indicates the wide recognition that Syria has to play a role in the solution that must be found for southern Lebanon.
Mr. Mills: Can Canada play a bigger role in that sort of area? Obviously the U.S. is always suspect in its interests. We would be much less suspect in terms of our involvement. It always seems to me that in a case like this we could play a higher-profile role, because the U.S. is kind of using the big stick. Is that wrong?
.1015
Mr. Laverdure: I wouldn't say that's wrong, but eventually, I would suggest, whatever we say or you say about the big stick, the Americans will be listened to, even by the Syrians. I think the Syrians are still interested in pursuing negotiations with Israel to find some sort of peace agreement, and they know the U.S. will play a role between the two of them.
The reason we all recognize that Syria is a major player is because of its importance in the region, the importance of its president and the role and interaction it has with both the authorities in Beirut and Tehran.
President Assad can become a key player - he is a key player. This is what, I think, the Americans, the Europeans and ourselves - all of us - are recognizing. We have to go through Damascus, and it could make the difference.
To come back to your first question, I would suggest that even if you wish to qualify the American type of diplomacy, I believe that in this region, with President Assad, it is not necessarily seen as a big-stick policy. It should - I think it will - work.
Mr. Mills: Take the economic aspect of raising the profile. Obviously if you could solve some of the economic problems of the Palestinians and those in south Lebanon and so on, it would probably result in a greater chance for peace. Do you feel the Israelis are dedicated to that? I kind of get the feeling that maybe you think they are not, or that they are going very slowly.
It would seem to me that the logic would be to raise them economically, thus neutralizing them. It would be the ultimate aim. Is that how the Israelis think?
Mr. Laverdure: Maybe we are having these discussions, which I personally find to be very useful, at a time when circumstances are difficult. We have a tendency to be a bit pessimistic and say that it can't work because we should just look at what's happening.
Nevertheless, for example, I referred earlier to the two economic summits we've had so far for the Middle East and the Maghreb. One was in Casablanca two years ago, and the last one was in Amman.
The next one will take place in November in Cairo. This is where you'll see the real business people working at a regional economic development. Israel is certainly very much interested. It's thinking that the day when peace is there for good, it will be in their interest. It will also be in the interest of smaller countries like Jordan and so on to look at the whole region in a peaceful situation. With security ensured, everybody would benefit economically and financially.
I would go even further. I would say that both the public and private sectors are getting ready for that day. That's why we want to play a role. We want to be there when the doors open. It's exciting, in a way, to figure what the economic situation and the trade prospects will be in that region if only we can get to the final and stable situation.
Mr. Mills: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): In North America we say one week is a very long time, but in the Middle East one hour is a very long time.
In 1994, Mr. Chairman, I was in Syria and Lebanon. I had a meeting with the representatives of Syrian foreign affairs. I assure this committee that they had an extremely high regard for our foreign policy and our staff who work in Foreign Affairs. They said this repeatedly.
They urged me to urge you - I did this at that time to the minister then, André Ouellet - to get Canada actively involved in the peace process. They asked for a comprehensive peace process to take place as soon as possible.
But I am a bit confused. I think we confused the issue of the peace process with the Israel and Palestine with the Lebanese issue. The reason we gathered here today, as our chairman indicated earlier, is the bombing of refugee camps in southern Lebanon. That's the reason, I think, we gathered here today.
Reading from this press release from the Canadian Arab Federation, I find it very sad. I don't think Lebanon needs, after 17 years of destruction and civil war, another bombardment of $120 million worth of electric turbines. After all, poverty doesn't breed peace. Poverty breeds violence. If you put these people back to where they were 200 years ago, the peace process would not be helped, that's for sure.
.1020
This is the other point I want to make. You mentioned that $70 million was committed to the peace process. I think the question was asked - but you didn't give me the correct answer, or the answer I wanted - how much of it was really transferred to Palestine out of the $70 million that may have been committed? I know it was $2 billion at the time for all nations in the world, but how much of it really went to Palestine to help the poverty there? That's one point.
The other very important point for me is - I think it was mentioned here - resolution 425. I think we mentioned the territorial integrity of the parties in the region and everything else. That applies to everybody. But resolution 425 applies only to Lebanon. I think the southern Lebanon security zone is the main conflict that's driving this situation now.
I know you also condemn the fact that Israel doesn't comply by withdrawing their forces from southern Lebanon. Here's just an idea for you to consider. That area, a 50-kilometre security buffer zone, has to be transferred over to the UN for a period of time as a step forward in bringing the peace process closer to actually having peace in the region.
So those are my concerns.
Here's the other thing that was brought up earlier. You never mentioned Syrian activities, which was mentioned before by my Reform colleague. As the expression goes, all roads lead to Rome. I think the peace process goes to Damascus in this case. If you emphasize that issue, I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Ward: Yes, of the $70 million that's been committed since the Declaration of Principles, approximately $46 million has been spent. A large portion of that has gone via UNRWA. In that sense, it's been to support refugees, which I'm sure you will agree are some of the poorest people in Gaza and the West Bank. Of course, UNRWA is also very active in Lebanon and Jordan in supporting refugees in those two countries.
The other assistance we've provided, as I mentioned before, has been via the NGOs and UNDP. Those programs are again directed at things like housing and improving the water supply and sanitation system, which was in a terrible state of repair. A lot of the infrastructure had just gone down over many years. The sense is that, for relatively small amounts of money, these systems could be repaired. It's amazing what a difference a clean water supply will make to a community.
The Canada Fund, at $1 million per year, is one of our most effective instruments, I think, because those moneys go directly into communities for small projects, ranging anywhere from $5,000 to $25,000. These could be helping community groups or women's association, etc. to do small income generation projects, small enterprise development, education schemes, and those types of things.
So as I said before, I have copies of the whole program here in French and English. I welcome members to take a copy.
The moneys are all committed. It's earmarked for projects that the Palestinian Authority has requested the international community to support. They're putting the emphasis now on projects that will create employment.
Ms Gibson: Perhaps, Mr. Assadourian, I can just deal with the second half of your question, which was about the role of Syria.
I think we would agree that the Syrian role is crucial to a lasting and durable peace. They have been in negotiations with the Israelis. Certainly, there's a sense in the region that when Syrian-Israeli negotiations are proving fruitful, certainly the Lebanese-Israeli track will also progress better. So the two of them are somewhat linked, I would say.
.1025
There isn't a Syrian embassy in Canada - we wish there were, but there is not at this time - so we used the channel of our ambassador in Damascus, John McNee, to urge the Syrians to play a role in reaching a cease-fire and brokering a return to the 1993 agreement, which was informal and not on paper, so that the current hostilities will come to a close.
They do talk to Hizbollah. Syrian troops were invited into Lebanon and are still present in large numbers, so they have a crucial role to play in some kind of settlement. We agree with you that they are an important player. A number of foreign governments have been in Damascus to urge their taking an active role - the Italian, French, Iranian and Russian foreign ministers, as well as Secretary Christopher. So the field is pretty crowded, but we have used our ambassador to make sure they know where we stand.
The Chairman: Mr. Assadourian, we have time for one more question. Because of the bells, we're going to have to break. Mr. Paré was next.
[Translation]
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Ms Beaumier referred earlier to the high rate of support received by Mr. Arafat in the elections. It was really a vote for peace. But I think that we have to realize that this is certainly a fragile vote which could change quickly.
Mr. Laverdure also said that the Palestinians must realize that peace served them better than war, or something to that effect. Will the economic and social development of the Palestinian territories be achieved quickly enough to avoid support for the peace process collapsing?
I would like now to talk briefly about Syria, and make an analogy which I realize might seem somewhat exaggerated. I believe that the role Syria plays with respect to Lebanon is not always a subtle one.
I would like to make the following parallel. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, methods were used which I would not like to see used again. It seems to me that in one case tanks were used, whereas in the other it was handkerchiefs.
Third, I would like you to tell us briefly about the situation regarding free trade negotiations between Canada and Israel. What is the current situation? Does the severe Israeli reaction against Lebanon call into question to some degree the free trade negotiations?
Mr. Laverdure: Mr. Paré, as regards economic support, I agree with you completely that it is indispensable and urgent. At present, with the closure of the borders, it is difficult to ensure even that support. In any event, I think that the people around the ad hoc committee table are all very aware of the need to act quickly.
Last January, on the eve of the elections for the Palestinian authority, when we met in Paris, we witnessed a very strong and rapid reaction. Mr. Ward, who has been at CIDA for a number of years, will tell you that such a strong and rapid reaction has seldom been seem.
At a single round table, which lasted some three hours, the World Bank collected some 1.3 billion dollars for Mr. Arafat, I believe. Each donor undertook to provide the funds quickly. As you said, the whole thing seems very fragile, and if Palestinians don't see some positive results from the peace agreements for which they were prepared to compromise quite a lot, support for Arafat and the peace process could melt away very quickly.
Insofar as we can come back to a situation that represents an improvement over how things were less than two months ago, donors will - in my opinion - take action very quickly. The World Bank is doing what it can to channel these efforts. This means there will be no difficulty in disbursing the funds. This should - and ``should" is the operative word - make all the difference, particularly in the area of job creation through infrastructure projects.
And as for infrastructure, I want to assure you that we are well aware of the need to take massive, rapid action. Failure to do so would make things even more unstable, even if there were no current conflict between Israel and southern Lebanon.
.1030
And continuing in the same economic vein, let's talk about the negotiations between Canada and Israel. As we were saying earlier, on Christmas Eve - if I remember correctly - we initialed the final wording, a wording on which both parties agreed. The negotiations had been both long and complex, like any negotiations for a free trade agreement.
Even after the wording is initialed, there are still some aspects to be fine-tuned. Because of the current election campaign in Israel, this was naturally put on the back burner for a while. But as soon as there's a new government in Israel, we intend and hope to resume final negotiations, and take care of any remaining details. We are still hoping - perhaps somewhat optimistically - to have the agreement in place by July 1st.
This gives us a few weeks in June after the new Israeli government is in place to conclude the free trade agreement.
You were making a link with current events. To come back to what I was saying to Mr. Mills, we have to assume there will be a settlement. Our economic efforts must be geared to the future, so that we're ready for the day on which the parties achieve a lasting peace. We can't just stop everything and say: ``There's no point in talking about a free trade agreement when there is a war on." I think our efforts should be ongoing, on a parallel track.
Mr. Bergeron: The problem isn't the war. The problem is signing a free trade agreement with a country that is dropping bombs on civilians in another independent country. That's the problem. The war isn't the problem, the State is the problem - the State with which we are thinking of entering into a close, bilateral free trade relationship.
Mr. Laverdure: But what I am saying right now...
The Chairman: The real problem is right here. There's going to be a vote in a few minutes.
Mr. Laverdure: Mr. Bergeron, I am not trying to split hairs. We are not currently negotiating with Israel. We arrived at a draft agreement in December, before the current events started. At present, we are not continuing with negotiations before a new government is elected.
Ms Debien: Mr. Laverdure, could we have a copy of that agreement?
Mr. Laverdure: The draft free trade agreement?
Ms Debien: Yes. Could we have a copy of it?
Ms Gibson: I have to check. I don't know whether the draft agreement is public. It may be.
Mr. Laverdure: I am not involved in the negotiations, but I'll check as well.
Ms Debien: I would like to see a copy of it.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sure that if we form a trade committee, the committee would be able to get -
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms Debien has opened a very important door for us.
[English]
We're going to have to adjourn immediately. We have about eight minutes to get to the House.
Mr. Bergeron has strongly urged that we pursue this matter. Thank you to the department officials for coming and for their very helpful comments. It's been a good learning experience for us. There's a feeling among committee members that we might pursue this further with some of the political representatives of either the parties involved or people here in Canada.
I would recommend that the steering committee study this at its meeting next week, because it could be a little bit complicated. We should try to do that, but we can discuss it at the steering committee level and bring it back to the members as a recommendation. I'm sure we could do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Will that take long, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: No. I promise that it won't.
[English]
Second, I apologize to the four members who couldn't be reached, but
[Translation]
we have lost time because of this vote.
[English]
We're adjourned until 3:30 this afternoon.