FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Á

1115

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

Mr. Raja Khouri (National President, Canadian Arab Federation)

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance))

Dr. Sheema Khan (Chair, Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Dr. Sheema Khan

Á

1135

Á

1140

Á

1145

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Raja Khouri

Á

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

Dr. Sheema Khan

Á

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day)

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

Mr. Raja Khouri

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

Â

1205

Dr. Sheema Khan

Mr. Raja Khouri

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

Â

1210

The Chair

Dr. Sheema Khan

The Chair

Mr. Raja Khouri

Â

1215

Mrs. Karen Redman

Dr. Sheema Khan

Mr. Raja Khouri

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Raja Khouri

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Raja Khouri

Â

1225

The Chair

Dr. Sheema Khan

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Mr. Raja Khouri

Â

1230

Mr. André Harvey

Mr. Raja Khouri

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Â

1235

The Chair

Dr. Sheema Khan

Mr. Raja Khouri

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Raja Khouri

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Â

1245

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 053

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Order, please.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the orders of the day are the consideration of relations with Muslim countries.

    As witnesses this morning we have, from the Canadian Arab Federation, Mr. Raja Khouri, the national president; and from the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada, Ms. Sheema Khan, the chair.

    We will start with Mr. Khouri, please.

    Mr. Raja Khouri (National President, Canadian Arab Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Honourable members, the Canadian Arab Federation has been the national umbrella organization representing Canadians of Arab descent since 1967. We are appreciative of your invitation to present our views and congratulate you on your leadership on the critical issues of Canada's relations with countries of the Muslim world.

    Canada believes in freedom, human rights, democracy, justice and fairness, multilateralism, and a world order based on international law and administered by global institutions. We are a peacemaking and peacekeeping nation, with a history of humanitarianism and the promotion of human development. We do not declare wars. Canada did not go to war in Vietnam, nor did it join the war on Iraq. We are the country that rallied behind the international landmines treaty and the International Criminal Court. This is who we are.

    Today, Canada aspires to maintain its traditions as it steers a course that serves both its interests and its values. As we do so, we have to contend with an increasingly belligerent ally: our neighbour and largest trading partner to the south. Yet Canadians have always expected their government to follow an independent and uniquely Canadian approach to our relations with the rest of the world. We are well aware that we cannot lose what defines us. Our best moments as a nation have been when we have chosen to lead rather than to follow.

    The Muslim world, a vast heterogeneous and complex expanse, is in a state of deep turmoil. It is, by and large, caught between extremist zealots subverting Islam to serve their aggressive ends, on the one hand, and corrupt, incompetent dictatorial regimes on the other. The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, however, reject extremism and look to enhance civil society through representative governments. Problems and structural barriers do remain, including poverty, illiteracy, oppression, inequality, and the lack of opportunity. These breeding grounds for extremism and fanaticism cannot be eradicated by the war on terrorism, as we saw in Afghanistan; neither would imposing democracy at gunpoint, as in Iraq, bring security and stability to a turbulent region; nor will allowing the tragedy of Palestine to continue give hope to the masses that justice may one day prevail.

    How the west responds to growing extremism and polarization may determine whether the world heads towards peace and prosperity or war and catastrophe. The “us versus them” attitude espoused by the current U.S. administration and extremists in the Muslim world is a sure way towards the latter. Judging by the above examples, the American model has been failing miserably.

    The west must therefore, one, reject the notion of a clash of civilizations put forward by Samuel Huntington in 1998 and advocated by some in our midst. A notion premised on the inequality of human needs and aspirations and the superiority of certain cultures over others is purely racist. Describing geopolitical conflict in cultural terms can only exacerbate it. By the same token, our role should not be to reform the Muslim world and install in it replicas of our institutions and systems. We should not, cannot, impose “made in Washington” democracy on a Muslim nation and expect that it will not be rejected as the foreign organism it is.

    Two, the west must extend a helping hand to reformists, intellectuals, human rights advocates, and civil society in Muslim countries so we can help them reform themselves. We need to help make democracy a viable alternative to the oppressive autocracies currently on hand and the radical theocracies that seek to replace them. We didn't do that in Iran, where theocracy has already replaced the dictatorial regime of the late Shah. There the west failed to reach out to the reformist movement that attracted overwhelming support from the populace. Instead of supporting this movement by opening channels to the country and helping the process to evolve, the United States placed Iran on its so-called axis of evil list, thereby isolating Iran and rallying popular support for the conservative mullahs in power.

    Three, we must condemn friendly dictators, the same way as we do the ones we do not like. That the west befriended and armed Saddam Hussein for years and then turned on him when he stopped serving its interests has not lent credibility to our desire to see democracy prevail in Iraq.

Á  (1120)  

    Four, we must uphold human rights equally for all people and all places. Human rights are universal and indivisible. It's more than a motto to brandish at conferences and international fora. We need to advocate for human rights in places like Chechnya, China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt. We may have to allow our interests to suffer in the short term by refusing to accommodate “friendly” regimes, so that we will gain in the long term by helping democracy and stability take hold.

    The role for Canada: Canada's involvement in Muslim countries has exemplified our nation's commitment to peacekeeping and development. Lester Pearson marked a new chapter in the history of the United Nations when he organized the first UN peacekeeping operation following the Suez war in 1956. That commitment to peaceful resolution in the region continued with Canadians serving in the Golan Heights.

    Canadians across the Middle East were patted on the back the day our Prime Minister declared that this country would not join the war in Iraq.

    Much of what goes on in relations between peoples rests on image and perception. Our country can capitalize on the tremendous goodwill it has garnered over the years through its peacemaking operations and generally fairly fair-minded, open, and multilateralist approach to world affairs.

    Canada's extensive work in international development has made CIDA's brand recognizable to Arabs and Muslims.

    Canada's humanitarian efforts have been extensive in helping the neediest, from aid to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon to young Canadians working as interns for United Nations agencies in Muslim countries. Such actions demonstrate Canada's values, policies, and national identity to ordinary Arabs and Muslims.

    All this is to say that when our country leads by principle, the world and our own citizens take note. This image, along with our perception of the world being run collaboratively, enabled Canada to take the leading role in improving relations between the west and the Muslim world, the way we led on boycotting apartheid in South Africa.

    Canada's approach may be summed up with the following statement: “Let the dialogue begin”. Here are some steps to encourage this dialogue.

    One, misunderstanding and distrust between the west and Muslim countries have been building up at alarming levels. If this trend is to be stopped, we need education on both sides. Canada should sponsor an international conference that brings together intellectuals, opinion makers, civil society, media, and reformers to start the dialogue and a process of cross-education. Such a gathering can put forward proposals for western and Arab and Muslim governments and institutions from both sides to implement.

    Canada can support and build on the efforts of institutions in this country and in the Muslim world whose mission is to improve dialogue, intercultural and interfaith understanding, pluralism, and non-violent conflict resolution. As the recently Jordan-based South-North Centre for Dialogue and Development's motto states, “People involved in dialogue are no longer people in conflict, but people seeking solutions”.

    Two, Canada should lead an effort in the west to provide economic trade and development incentives to governments in the Muslim world that focus on reform and democratization and open up their systems and institutions. By the same token, governments that do not reform should not receive any arms or economic assistance.

    Three, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies that work in literacy, social and democratic development, and education in Arab and Muslim countries should receive enhanced funding and support. Much of the root causes of radicalism and the attraction to reactionary religious doctrines stem from ignorance, poverty, and the lack of opportunity and social development.

    Four, the refusal this year of Canada and some key European countries to join the war on Iraq went a long way in raising Canada's image in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims, but the ongoing occupation, lack of basic security, and the domination over Iraq's affairs by the United States and its allies remain a cause of serious concern. The presence of the occupation forces in Iraq has strengthened the hand of extremists and provided them with a rallying cry.

    Canada has taken the right step on Iraq by insisting on working through multilateral institutions and not taking part in the policing of the country. We should stay the course and insist that the UN administer Iraq and turn it over to the Iraqi people at the earliest possible date.

Á  (1125)  

    Five, the festering wound for Arabs and Muslims remains Palestine. That the majority of Palestinians continue to suffer such injustice after more than five decades of living as refugees and/or under occupation, despite countless UN resolutions, is a travesty beyond belief to Arabs and Muslims. Given that a pro-Israeli U.S. administration holds most of the cards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Canada should align itself with the more balanced stand of the European Union in helping achieve peace and pressuring an intransigent Israeli government to abide by international law and UN resolutions.

    Condemning terrorism, as we should, is not by itself a sound policy, since it does not recognize the reality of Israel's occupation and the context within which the violence is taking place. The Canadian government cannot be seen to censure one form of violence while remaining silent on another. Active advocacy for ending the occupation of the Palestinian areas is therefore required, as is economic and humanitarian aid to the devastated Palestinian areas. As in other countries, Canada should extend a hand to Palestinian reformers who reject the inadequacies of the Palestinian Authority as well as the actions of extremist groups like Hamas.

    Six, decisions made by the Canadian government in the recent past have tarnished its image in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Succumbing to pressure from American and pro-Israel lobbies, and under the guise of national security, Canada proceeded to ban the social-political wing of Hezbollah and a direct Air Canada route set to open between Montreal and Beirut.

    Hezbollah is regarded by Arabs and Muslims as a legitimate Lebanese political party, with representation in the country's Parliament and an extensive network of badly needed social service providers. Canada chose to ignore this, along with the impact the ban has had on curbing fundraising for charitable and humanitarian needs and the ability of Canadians to send remittances to impoverished families. Canada was the first and only country, other than the United States, to sanction Hezbollah. Banning the Air Canada route was equally misguided and positioned Canada as a crony in Washington's bid to pressure the Lebanese and Syrian governments.

    These actions did not serve Canada well or help improve its image in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Given that the European Union did not take similar actions, we are left to wonder whether we let ourselves be influenced by lobbies whose priorities are not necessarily in Canada's interests.

    Seven, and the last point, Canada must also educate its own institutions and public about the Muslim world, its culture, and politics. Canadian political institutions have demonstrated a superficial and stereotypical understanding of Canadian Arabs and Muslims, as evident in the ignorant, clumsy, and often offensive way security agencies have treated them since September 11, 2001. Indeed, the immigration and solicitor general departments' actions toward our communities have often been perceived as hostile, and the justice department's attitude nothing short of indifferent.

    As recently as a year ago, over a third of Canadians told an Ekos poll that they view Muslims negatively, and one in two believes Canadian Arabs should receive special security treatment. This attitude toward more than a million Canadian Arabs and Muslims and a quarter of the world's population cannot be allowed to continue.

    A comparative national study of Canadian Arabs produced by the Canadian Arab Federation post 9/11 reveals some startling facts. Among them are the following: 85% of respondents felt that Canadians think Muslims are violent; 92% felt that what Canadians know about Arab culture stems from myths and negative stereotypes; 91% felt that the Canadian media negatively stereotypes Arabs; one in four families surveyed have experienced racism first-hand; and only 14% felt the federal government is concerned with their needs.

    The study also showed that 72% of immigrants from Arab countries have chosen Canada for its record on human rights and freedoms. It also showed that 92% of respondents support Canada's multiculturalism, and 91% are proud of their Canadian-Arab identity. For a community with such an attachment to Canada and its core values to feel marginalized and misunderstood is a real shame.

    For Canada to improve its relations with countries of the Muslim world, it must first get its own house in order by understanding, listening to, and protecting the rights of Arabs and Muslims within it. All practices of racial profiling must cease, and the security agenda must not be allowed to step roughshod over the country's commitment to multiculturalism and human rights.

Á  (1130)  

    The practice of issuing security certificates, whose five current victims are all Arab, must be abandoned. Canadian Arabs and Muslims travelling abroad must be better protected from abuses by overzealous security and immigration officials. Our culture must be celebrated and appreciated instead of being demonized.

    In conclusion, it is our belief, as Canadians, that our traditions, values, and image abroad empower us to make a difference on a world-defining issue. You have taken the lead in carving a course of action that reflects the things that define us. This is an opportunity for our country not only to provide global leadership, but also to reaffirm its uniquely Canadian identity.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)): Thank you, Mr. Khouri.

    Ms. Khan, you'll also be presenting, I understand.

    Dr. Sheema Khan (Chair, Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada): Yes, I will.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): After that, the members of the committee would like to have a discussion with you.

    So please proceed.

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Thank you, members of the committee.

    First of all, is there a single Muslim world? There are many differences, historical, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural, and they exist among the various parts of the Muslim world. Nonetheless, there is still very much a “Muslim world” in the sense that there is a common heritage, a common set of beliefs, rituals, and to a large extent, a shared sense of both history and destiny.

    For example, the ritual of Hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, brings two to three million Muslims together every year. Much has been written about the power of Hajj in bringing together Muslims from the farthest reaches of the globe to one single place where their sense of community is strengthened through a very profound and symbolic set of practices.

    A number of conflicts in recent years have captured the minds and thoughts of Muslims throughout the world, primarily because of the perceived inequality between Muslims and their opponents. Specifically, images of the conflicts in Bosnia, Chechnya, most recently in Afghanistan, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have contributed to a sense of persecution in the minds of many Muslims.

    A breakdown of Muslims throughout the world. There are now a large number, about 500 million, Muslims who live as minorities. This number is larger than ever before. This is a relatively novel experience in the sense that it has occurred over the past 50 to 100 years; therefore the experiences of these Muslims are substantially different from those of Muslims who live in countries where they are the majority.

    What can further divide countries where Muslims are a minority into older minorities and more recent minorities? For example, in India, China, and Russia, Muslims have lived for hundreds of years as a minority, whereas in western Europe and North America substantial Muslim communities have only existed for about 70 to 80 years.

    One more question we can ask is, is the Muslim world dominated by the Middle East? To some extent, yes, in the sense that the centrality of the Arabic language to Islam as well as the importance of the Hajj ritual, in addition to the fact that all Muslims face Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, for each of their five daily prayers, means there is a constant attachment to the Middle East in one form or another.

    Last, there is a sense that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not merely restricted to Palestinians but is something of a bellwether conflict, in the sense that if Muslims do well in that conflict they must certainly be on their way to regaining their rightful place among nations.

    The committee can learn a few lessons from a similar project that was recently completed in the U.S. There was a study commissioned by Congress this past June in the aftermath of a worldwide poll taken by the Pew Centre for Research, which bluntly put that “the bottom has fallen out of Arab and Muslim support for the United States”. For example, this year it was shown that 15% of Indonesians polled viewed the U.S. favourably, whereas less than one year ago 61% had held that opinion. The goal of this congressional inquiry was to find out why, what to do about it, and how to marginalize the call of extremists. Based on their results, I think we can learn quite a bit.

    The panel consulted Muslims in more or less the same parts of the world that the committee has travelled to, and what they found was that Muslims expressed the desire for social justice, fair judiciary, honest multi-party elections, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression. This was in harmony with the earlier peace survey, which also found a very high value placed on religious freedom.

    Perhaps these results are surprising to us, but that's only due to our misplaced expectations built upon extremist rhetoric and autocratic governments, neither of which represents the wider aspirations of Muslims. That was the first time a genuine effort was made to listen to the public mood.

    Why was there discontent with America? There are three primary reasons: one, its foreign policy; two, its support of non-representational governments; and three, its lack of response to the propaganda of extremists.

    As Mr. Khouri has mentioned, Muslims are angry at the unbridled support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. They are angry because of the bombardment of Iranistan, as well as a decade of war, sanctions, and the current occupation of Iraq. People see the suffering of millions as a direct result of American intervention. Nonetheless, the federal U.S. panel advised that foreign policy stay on course.

    As for the support of undemocratic regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, this has prompted many to believe that the U.S. wants freedom and democracy only for itself and not for Muslims in their own countries. Not only that, the report acknowledges American ambivalence about the possibility of democracy's first beneficiary--that is, the extremists. They are afraid to allow for free elections because they are afraid that extremist parties might win. This is a very condescending attitude and implies that Muslims cannot be trusted to choose their own form of government. It also justifies outside intervention in internal affairs of sovereign nations.

Á  (1135)  

    The bulk of the report focuses on efforts to counteract anti-American propaganda, and the effort is laudable. The view is to educate Muslims about true American values--and we can do the same for Canadian values, and this way, we can change minds and win the peace. But Muslims have pointed out the disconnect or the distinction between what Americans preach as their ideal and America's actions abroad. This will only reinforce this, if you will, discrimination in actions and deeds that Muslims feel. In fact, reinforcing the fact that America has such great values while not doing anything about its foreign policies will only sharpen this contradiction and actually plays right into the hands of Osama bin Laden.

    We in the west are only attuned to his violent threats. I don't know how many of you speak Arabic, but if you listen to the entire tapes given to Al Jazeera, one of the things he does speak to very forcefully is the pent-up anger felt by Muslims abroad towards American interference. Consider this very startling, if not worrisome, result: significant populations in Indonesia, 58%; in Jordan, 55%; in Morocco, 49%; in Pakistan, 45%, have expressed confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

    As the Commons committee weighs the above, it's clear that our foreign policy should be distinctly Canadian, in harmony with our basic values of compassion, fairness, and justice. Contradictions between our words and our deeds will only sow mistrust.

    Here are some good points. Our peacekeeping efforts and international developmental projects have earned the respect of many people throughout the Muslim world. Our principled stand against the invasion of Iraq has only enhanced this respect. Let's not underestimate the patently Canadian virtues of self-effacement and multiculturalism. These both translate into a low-key approach towards understanding rather than dominating the world around us. We are in an excellent position to help bridge the divide, and given the current tensions, this is a responsibility that we should not shirk.

    Specifically, the present feeling in the countries of the Muslim world has been equivocal. In one sense, Muslims in many countries recognize that Canada is an independent and sovereign nation that makes its decisions independent of the United States. On the other hand, oftentimes an attitude is taken to consider Canada together with the United States.

    For example, in the aftermath of the events of September 11, many petroleum-related businesses in the Middle East banned any travel to the United States because of increased scrutiny and perceived hostility from U.S. customs and INS agents. In many cases, unfortunately, the travel ban extended to include Canada as well. Meetings now take place in either the Middle East or Europe rather than across the Atlantic.

    In the aftermath of the events of September 11, many Middle Eastern patients who were in the habit of travelling to the United States to seek medical treatment are now travelling to Europe. German hospitals are reporting a 30% increase in business from Middle Eastern countries. Canada appears not to have benefited from the diversion of this segment of health care customers despite our world-renowned excellent medical care.

    Finally, among Muslims who are able to clearly distinguish Canada from the United States, the feelings of negativity that do exist seem to be due to omission rather than commission. In other words, the questions that are asked are, why does Canada not step forward and play a greater role as an honest broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and why do Canadian companies not try to fill the void left by the boycott of American products currently underway in many Muslim countries?

    Although many Muslim countries are governed in a non-representative manner, or perhaps because they are, governments are nonetheless attuned to the mood in the streets. Hence, some of these countries' foreign policies are dictated by the popular mood, and the proportion that is dictated by popular sentiment varies, depending upon the overall internal situation of each country and the specific issue at hand at the time.

    In addressing the questions posed above, we ought to explore another question, and that is, how is Canada promoted abroad? There are presently only four ways through which people around the world, and in the Muslim world in particular, are exposed to Canada: one, through political efforts such as UN roles or peacekeeping missions; two, cultural exchanges, including foreign students studying in Canada; three, commerce, including exports of Canadian entertainment; and four, aid.

Á  (1140)  

    It's debatable which of these four is the most effective in promoting Canada and its values; however, it is clear that commercial ventures are at least the most profitable.

    In the long run, however, the most effective means of promoting Canada is through accepting foreign students for study in Canadian universities. This is also the recommendation made by the congressional report: to increase the exchange of students and professionals to gain more first-hand interaction with North America. Foreign students are likely to return to the countries of origin in academic, administrative, and leadership positions. For example, a number of ministers in several countries are Canadian-educated.

    In the last few years, due to visa restrictions, the number of foreign graduate students seeking to study in the United States has declined considerably. Canada has the opportunity to fill that void, but it would require an investment in scholarship funding. We can impress upon foreign students our Canadian values of tolerance, fairness, pluralism, and mutual respect, and thereby contribute towards building a better world.

    I thank you for your time.

Á  (1145)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): I thank you both for your presentations. The process we follow is that we acknowledge our opposition parties, and we try to keep the questions and your response to five minutes each so that we can make sure we get around the table to as many people as possible within the time.

    Again, thank you for your presentations.

    We will go to Dr. Martin first, for a five-minute exchange.

    Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

    Thank you both for your excellent presentations. It gives us some hope.

    Professor Cotler, Dr. Patry, and I just returned from the Middle East. We were in Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt, and I can perhaps speak for all of us in saying we were deeply saddened at the dangerous level of violence and how things seem to be spiralling out of control.

    So, first of all, in the excellent suggestions you had in dealing with undemocratic, autocratic regimes, how do you propose that we actually engage with civil society in those countries in a way that does not cause a backlash against them? In the changes you propose, it's actually going to undermine the rulers of those countries. So what's the most constructive way an outsider can do that?

    Secondly, we found that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was central to the area and indeed was used as an excuse by many of those autocratic countries not to deal with their own domestic problems. So despite the U.S.'s unevenness in the situation, I believe we have to engage them, and perhaps Canada has a role in working with the U.S. to use even-handed interventions that will be fair to both the Israelis and Palestinians for their mutual security.

    So I would just ask both of you your opinions. In what ways do you think Canada can or ought to engage with the U.S. to try to modify their engagement with the region to bring both the Israelis and the Palestinians together to resolve the issue for two states that are independent and secure in their borders?

    Thank you.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: In terms of reaching out to civil society and reformers, I think a country like Canada is well trusted throughout the region because of its history, as we outlined, and the fact that it does not intervene in these countries to change them or to impose its own agendas on them. It has traditionally intervened either as a peacemaker or a promoter of development and peace.

    So Canada is, therefore, ideally suited to working with civil society and reformists in a non-threatening manner to them because Canada is not seen as a potential enemy, or as an aggressive force, or a force with a colonial past in the region or ambitions of imposing its own agenda, as the U.S. is seen in many countries. So having that kind of image is a huge plus for us. If our approach to civil society remains within the same type of context of development, dialogue, openness, understanding, mutual respect, I don't think it will affect negatively the reformists or the civil society movement.

    As far as the second question, on Palestine, is concerned, on the road map we all said, fine, let's have another try. Despite the shortcomings that everyone could point out, probably, in the road map, let's go down that route. But the U.S. appeared to lose interest very quickly and the focus always seemed to appear towards Israel's security, with no interest in the security of the Palestinians.

    Security is more than just having bombs blow up in your midst, as has been happening on both sides. It's also being able to go to work, go to school, find work, be able to buy food. People have been living in severe conditions--which you must have seen for yourself, Dr. Martin, when you were there--for years now. They have the reoccupation, the barriers to movement between one area and the other, and finally, now, you have this wall that's being built and intruding into the West Bank in many areas, so 40% of the West Bank is being isolated from the remaining 60% completely and people can't even access their farmland, the source of their income.

    So what can Canada do? We need a counterbalance to the bias in the U.S. approach towards, and support of, Israel. That counterbalance can come from Canada. It is coming, to some extent, from the European Union. That's why I suggested that we're better off trying to align ourselves with the more balanced approach of the European Union.

    I don't know of a way whereby this country can counter the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, to be honest with you.

Á  (1150)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Mr. Khouri, the five minutes being taken up, we'll move to Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I thank you both.

    I participated in the tour that took us to Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In Iran and in Saudi Arabia, when we asked how we could narrow the growing gap between the West and the Muslim world, we were basically told that if we let the extremists on both sides carry on, the worst would happen, but on the other hand, if the reformers—in this case, we were in Iran—on both sides worked together, it would be possible to come to an understanding and to move things in the right direction. Someone else, rather than speaking in terms of reformers and conservatives, spoke of reasonable and unreasonable people. However, it was the same notion.

    What do you think of this?

[English]

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Thank you. You're asking about how to support the reformers, and I think, from your own experience, you've seen a variety of people passionately engaged in what seems to be an increasingly dangerous situation. In terms of the first thing about marginalizing the extremists, as I said, I personally was shocked to see the relatively high support for someone like Mr. bin Laden that the Pew survey reported. It's not that they support his methods--by no means. What he speaks to is this perceived injustice; and as long as you have the injustice that Muslims perceive happening to their own people, no matter how many attempts we make to help reformers within their own countries, as long as these basic injustices are not dealt with, I think we're going to have a lot of trouble winning hearts, if you like.

    Nonetheless, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try anything. For people who are reformers, of course, any help, as Dr. Martin pointed, received from “the West” may be viewed with some suspicion in this sense: is it a really genuine effort, or are they just being puppets of people from abroad? I think the criticism comes with the territory of trying to reform. If anything, we can assist people who are trying to reform with moral support--I don't know about financial support--but I think we should be ready to condemn actions by governments. For example, in Egypt, there was this imprisonment and eventual release of the human rights worker, whose name escapes me. But he's one of the few people who fought for the monitoring of human rights in Egypt and he was imprisoned for a report questioning the fairness of the last elections.

    We have to speak out when people who stand up for basic human values, which are universal, are being threatened. I think we have to take a stronger stand on that. Exchanges, I think, are another way of helping those who reform. But again, to take away the appeal of the extremists, they always harp upon the injustices, and this is something we can't forget.

Á  (1155)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Stockwell Day): Thank you.

    Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to welcome our witnesses before the committee today and take the opportunity to say, in a very public way, I think the leadership that has been shown by both of your organizations, and by you and others, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the horrors that have unfolded, has been truly exemplary, and I think it is important for us to acknowledge that in a public way.

    I'm looking, Mr. Khouri, at your references to human rights being universal and indivisible. I'm wondering if I could ask you to comment further on the reference you made to the security certificates, the fact that, in effect, there's a suspension of due process, of transparency, yet we're seeing people who are being imprisoned without charges, without explanation, and so on.

    In addition to that, I'm wondering if you could comment further on an issue that has engaged and attracted the attention of this committee, namely, the Maher Arar case, which someone might say is now taken care of because he's safe at home in Canada. But I'm wondering if you have any recommendations. I know both of your organizations have been supportive of trying to get to the bottom of what has happened here; about what this committee should do; or what the Canadian government should be doing at this point, by way of rendering justice to the individual family involved, but also to getting to the bottom of this so that other Canadian Arabs and Canadian Muslims can be assured that a similar fate might not befall them if they're to visit the U.S. or other countries similarly repressive towards Arab or Muslim citizens.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: September 11 and the security agenda that has taken over since then have essentially separated our communities from the rest of Canadians, first of all through guilt by association and the mere suspicion of Arabs and Muslims following what happened on September 11, and then through the subsequent legislation of Bill C-36 and the current Bill C-18, lawful access, etc., and a public agenda that has put security ahead of human and civil rights in this country.

    The use of the security certificate through the Immigration Act was expanded from initially being applied to foreigners, to refugee claimants, and then to landed immigrants. Bill C-18 will expand the use of the security certificate to Canadian citizens themselves, who essentially under Bill C-18 can be stripped of their citizenship and deported from this country based on secret evidence that they will never see and their lawyers will never see.

    Honourable members, the security certificate is an offence to Canadians--being able to strip people of their basic rights in a democracy to all the aspects of legal defence, to due process and being able to defend themselves. It's a slippery slope. We are, through Bill C-18, preparing to use it against our own citizens.

    It's at the heart of our problem today, the way we see it. How can we ask the Syrians to get Maher Arar out because they haven't charged him, when we have Arabs here in this country who have been in jail for more than two years without charges also? How can we go out and tell other countries they should follow due process and the rule of law, when we don't seem to be abiding by due process here in this country? This is a disgrace that we should get rid of as soon as possible in this country.

    Now, on the Maher Arar case, unfortunately, it took months for the average Canadian to appreciate what happened there and to rally support behind his release, which was achieved only recently, after about a year of his being in prison in Syria. The tragedy started the day he was stopped in New York on his way back to Canada. Our government did nothing to secure his release from the United States. Now we're finding out the RCMP actually knew about it and did nothing.

    Ten days later, we didn't have consular access to him in the United States. There is a major failure on the part of our government, as perceived by our communities, to protect its citizens who are Arab or Muslim. This is a failure in our multicultural society. It's a big failure and it works against what this country stands for. The Maher Arar case exemplified that.

    We have to look at what we are telling Canadians when we do these things, when we allow our citizens who are Muslim or Arab to be treated like criminals at the border with the United States without really making a public complaint. The Prime Minister never said a word about this.

    Up until this day, if you are Arab or Muslim entering the United States, you can be interrogated for hours. We've seen it happen recently with the high-profile case of the two imams who were travelling from Toronto and were held up for 16 hours in Florida for no reason whatsoever. You get your fingerprints taken, your picture taken, and so on.

    So we should not be allowing this to happen in our own country, on our borders with the United States. Our citizens should be better treated abroad. And we should have the backbone to say that the United States or any other government cannot treat our citizens in this manner.

    But first of all, we should stop these lousy practices ourselves here at home, because otherwise we don't have a moral leg to stand on to be able to lecture other countries.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Khouri.

    Mr. Eggleton.

    Mr. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): I certainly agree with you that the Arar case cries out for answers, and hopefully we can get those answers soon and help in terms of the overall protection of civil liberties.

    I've come from a trip, like my colleagues, to the Muslim countries. I did the Southeast Asia tour of Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Pakistan. You talked in your submission, Mr. Khouri, about giving a helping hand to reformists, intellectuals, human rights advocates, and civil society in Muslim countries, so we can help them reform themselves. You said we need to help make democracy a viable alternative to the oppressive autocracies currently on hand and the radical theocracies that seek to replace them. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that, and it's certainly a message that came across throughout the tour I was on.

    Also, Ms. Khan, what you said about education, the fact that fewer are going to the United States, does give us an opportunity, and I hope we will take advantage of that. I remember in Indonesia hearing how the connection to McGill University was very strong--people who had taken the Islamic studies course, for example. We need to do more of that kind of thing with other universities and other kinds of courses as well.

    On the Middle East, I have a bit of a different view from yours. I went in 1997 when I was trade minister and I offered a free trade agreement to Israel. I then went over to Ramallah and offered them the same free trade agreement, and I saw an interaction, business people and people in the community, that was very heartening. That was in 1997. I went back earlier this year, and things were not the same at all. It was very discouraging, very disappointing to see the way things had deteriorated all around--on both sides.

    What happened in between? Well, we know that the Bill Clinton summit at Camp David and the one that followed at Taba put a very extensive proposition on the table from the Israelis, and we know that Yasser Arafat said no and didn't come back with a counter response. We know that he came back with the intifada and suicide bombing.

    I can't help but think, when I look at your position on the matter, that you're being far too soft in your criticism of the Palestinian Authority. I think the leadership of the Palestinian Authority has been very corrupt, including Yasser Arafat. If they were to put a stop to the terrorist organizations like Hamas, which they could do--they have the power and the might to do that if they want to--it would help lead toward a peaceful solution.

    But we may agree to disagree on some of those particulars.

    I do want to ask you, though, in a very positive way about something that has come out of Geneva recently, where people who have formerly been associated with the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government have put together something that may be the way to get out of this. I haven't read it in detail yet, but I'm very interested in the fact that some people are coming up with something to try to break this impasse, because I think the bottom line is that regardless of how we see this situation, we want the people of Israel and the people of Palestine to be able to live in peace, to be able to bring about economic prosperity and all of the things those people deserve and have suffered so long to try to obtain.

    Do you have any thoughts about that proposition from Geneva, the Geneva Initiative, I think it's called?

  (1205)  

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Unfortunately, I haven't read it, so I'll pass to Mr. Khouri.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: There are a number of those sorts of peace plans that have sprung up lately. There's the Geneva one, and there's another one that came out of Jerusalem, Sari Nusaiba and a former Israeli colonel--I can't remember his name. They're all possible. The solution is known. The solution has been known for many years. The problem is not one peace plan or the other.

    But you cannot also look at.... There's no love lost between me and Yasser Arafat. Yasser is corrupt. Did he encourage terrorism? We don't know that. You and I don't know that. I don't think he has a button to push to make people go out and blow themselves up. What happened in Taba was very promising, and the Palestinians did not reject what was happening in Taba, but it was cut short by the Israeli elections.

    As for Camp David, as far as I know, there was no formal offer at Camp David. There were talks. And even Bill Clinton retracted his statement at the time that Yasser Arafat was responsible for the failure of the talks.

    If you look at what happened since the Oslo accords, in that period between Oslo and 1997 there were probably two suicide bombings, because people were hopeful. They were waiting for peace to happen. There was relative prosperity in the economic conditions. The suicide bombings resumed when the peace process started to falter.

    We need to be careful how we look at terrorism and blame everything on it. As I said, you cannot just condemn terrorism. Yes, we should condemn terrorism; it's no solution to anything. But the violence of the occupation is not any worse than the terrorism itself. None of us here knows what we would do after being 37 years under an oppressive occupation that takes away our dignity, our livelihood at times, our ability to live as human beings.

    I feel very bad for the people who get killed by these suicide bombers. I also feel bad for the suicide bombers themselves, because you have young people, some of them even young women, going out there to blow up people. And that's the ultimate in not being able to see an alternative. One person said the other day, if you don't want people to blow themselves up, give them tanks, give them F-16s, and they'll stop blowing themselves up. Unfortunately, some people have come to see it as the only weapon, as ugly as it is.

    I think we need to make a distinction between the bin Laden brand of terrorism and the Hamas brand of terrorism. Yes, no terrorism is good, but the bin Laden brand of terrorism does not have a legitimate political context within which it happens. They want to destabilize Saudi Arabia, so they bomb New York. This is not a legitimate political context. However, with Hamas, as abominable as the method is to you and me, as terrorism, there is a legitimate political context, and that context is resisting the occupation. We need to see that difference and recognize it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mrs. Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My apologies, I had to step out. So if this has already been covered, please let me know.

    I spoke with a friend of mine--I come from Kitchener and he comes from Iraq but has lived in Canada for a very long time--who made the point that you made in your first presentation, that to impose a western style of democracy on the countries of the Islamic or Muslim world isn't going to ever happen. You touched on it a little bit in your presentation, but what are the yardsticks, or how do we reconcile the desire for the rule of law and human rights if we use another yardstick?

    I agree with you, I don't think you go in and intrude on national politics, but clearly, even within the United States, I think there's a disconnect between this current administration and many Americans. The too had anti-war demonstrations. Certainly, there were forces within Canada that absolutely pilloried our Prime Minister for the stand that we took as Canadians.

    So acknowledging that even in fairly old democracies there's a difference of opinion as to how you find the right end of the string to start pulling at the solution, what's the way forward?

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Dr. Khan.

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Unfortunately, in many of the Muslim countries, you don't have the option to dissent with those who are ruling—at least in some countries. The experience is different in others, for example, in Indonesia and Malaysia, where you have a sizable Muslim population. If you like, the political institutions allowing for diversity or differences of opinion are not there for Muslims everywhere in the world. So I think you have to put each country or each region separately, seeing its history and the evolution, if you like, of what we call democratic principles.

    There is one principle, though, that is common throughout the Muslim world, the process called shura, or consultation. It is part of our belief system; in fact, there's a whole chapter of the Koran called shura, or consultation. It works, for example, within the family, and it can work at larger levels—and hopefully also at the higher levels. This would be, I think, the most recognizable form of political participation or democracy that we in the west recognize. If we encourage people or institutions there to stay true to that notion of shura, which they themselves understand and support, they would not see that as outside intervention.

    I think it will help if you ask people to remain true to their own historic belief systems or institutions, which in the past, when they worked, provided a tremendous amount of success. So we don't have to come in with a western approach, but we can study their history and see that there are elements we understand, and which we should encourage them to revisit as a means, if you like, to find solutions to problems they are facing.

    I don't know if that answers your question.

    The Chair: Do you want to add something, Mr. Khouri?

    Mr. Raja Khouri: Just to follow up on that, again, I think there is the process of education on both sides. I think what 9/11 demonstrated to all of us, although we knew this before, is that as a society we really do not know much about Arabs and Muslims. That's close to a quarter of the world's population and a part of our future. We had to have things explode so close to our homes here for us to realize there's that part of the world where something wrong is happening.

    We really need to improve our understanding as a society of what's going on in that part of the world. Our universities need to have centres of Arab and Muslim studies in them—much more than we see these days. Our government has a responsibility to help Canadians in their perception of Arabs and Muslims, both within Canada and the Arab world.

    There are no easy solutions to this, but the dialogue has to start. Our politics, not just in Canada but in the west as well, needs to become fair and to be seen as fair in that part of the world.

    And the cultural divide has to be bridged. I think the most critical thing we're dealing with today is that the cultural divide is growing. It used to be much better than this, but now it's growing. As Sheema's numbers show, this is the biggest danger here, and that cultural divide needs to be overcome. And that can only happen through dialogue and education, education, education.

  (1215)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Further to those comments, I guess my other question would be, what is the appetite on the other side to get to know Canada as a distinct nation as opposed to this amorphous glob known as the western world?

    I do apologize, as I wasn't here for all of Ms. Khan's presentation, but I noticed with great interest that you could point out quite rightly that when Canada's action was different from the United States, it was well embraced—albeit other actions may have been a reaction to our need to have security, and how we've operated vis-à-vis America in dealing with Canadian citizens who are Canadians by choice as opposed to by birth.

    The appetite has to be on the other side, too. I recognize America as a foreign country to Canada; but unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't always do that. I guess we're often defined by whether or not we reflect American values, which by definition become western values, and they may not necessarily be covered under Canadian values.

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Based on this congressional report, what affects people in the Arab and Muslim world is American foreign policy. One of the quotes they heard from many of the respondents was, “We like Americans; we don't like what the American government is doing.” People aren't stupid. They are able to distinguish between the broad human qualities of a population as opposed to the policies of those in power.

    The same can be said of Canada, in the sense that our foreign policy will be the first image we project overseas. It's not interventionist, it's not declaring war, it's not occupying. It's much more...I don't even want to use the word “benign”. I think it's very powerful to go in and help civil society get on its feet, to provide aid, to provide infrastructure.

    I remember talking to a friend of mine who was in the Quebec human rights commission, and she was going over to Indonesia, helping them set up their commissions. I believe our judiciary, our judges, and our police forces are helping to build civil structures in different parts of the world. It's these kinds of things that have an impact on daily lives that don't make the headlines but I think will have a real impact on people--the way we help people organize themselves, help people set up rule of law, and help people get educated.

    One of the biggest deficiencies we have in the Muslim world is educational institutions. They're remnants of colonial institutions and they're going to need to be overhauled quite a bit.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: Mr. Chair, can I follow up with a very short story? My wife was doing a contract for UNESCO in Lebanon very recently. She visited a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut and identified herself as being from UNESCO. She got a lukewarm reception. In the course of the discussion she said she was Canadian, and their eyes lit up. People were much more receptive to her, knowing she is Canadian. CIDA is well recognized in these refugee camps. So people know, even the little person on the street knows, and that goes a long way.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to Mr. Day, then Mr. Harvey, Madam McDonough, and the last question to Ms. Carroll.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you so much for your presentations.

    Just having come back from visiting four Muslim nations, I think I speak for my other colleagues when I say we were wonderfully received. They are generous people. We had a great time, albeit there were differences.

    There are a number of things you've raised here that I would like to see become part of our report, that I can concur with and agree with. We'll obviously move to some other areas.

    As a comment, you talk about a cultural divide. I hope you don't feel, and that people of Muslim nations don't feel, that that's something coming from the west. I think as awareness happens it will be more evident that there's a cultural divide--when we go to Saudi Arabia and see there's a law where women are not allowed to drive a car. I don't think we impose a change there--we have no right to do that--but it's a cultural divide.

    We were shown the square where this year 50 people have been beheaded. That's the law in Saudi Arabia. It's a cultural divide. We were told by a number of women's groups in Egypt that 90% of the women there have had female circumcision. It's a cultural divide. I'm not saying Canada should storm in there and change it, but as awareness of our differences come along there will be those divides, and we will do all we can to promote the tolerance of those differences.

    First, in terms of condemning friendly dictators--and I agree with you, I think we've been hypocritical; I think we've been duplicitous in that. In light of the fact that of the 22 nations that surround democratic Israel, a majority of them have various forms of dictatorship in the classical sense. Should we be condemning those Arab or Muslim dictatorships?

    Number two, can you give us some insight on the refugee question? Down through the years, whenever there have been conflicts in other parts of the world, and disputed territories and terrible refugee situations, Canada and other western nations have always stepped forward and said, for those who want to leave, for the refugees who want to leave the camps and things like that, we will take, ultimately, thousands and thousands of them, and other western nations have done that. Why have we not seen that among Arab nations, again, around the Palestinian question? Many of the nations are wealthy, some are not, but we don't see that same absorption or reaching out to refugees there. Can you help us with that?

    In terms of support and non-support for bin Laden, Mr. Khouri, I'd suggest that you'll run into a moral dilemma if you condemn the terrorism of Osama bin Laden but not that of Hamas, for instance. You're just going to run into a problem. We condemn all terrorism, the deliberate destruction of innocent people--women, children, non-combatants. We condemn it all. Yes, look to the various issues, but I'd suggest you may run into some difficulty. Bin Laden and his folks figure their stuff is totally legitimate; I think it's illegitimate. We condemn all terrorism.

    Any comments you want to make on any of those would be appreciated.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Mr. Khouri.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: I'm going to start from the bottom. I did not say we should not condemn the terrorism of Hamas. We definitely should condemn all terrorism. I don't think there's good terrorism or bad terrorism.

    The distinction I made was within the political context. I think when we condemn the Hamas terrorism, we should look at the political context within which it's happening at the same time, which is resistance to occupation. It has become seen as the only way to resist the occupation by many in Palestinian society, and that's unfortunate. It wasn't like that when the peace process was actually progressing.

    On the matter of refugees, there are already many Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and all the surrounding countries. In Lebanon, there are close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees, I believe, and it has caused a strain on Lebanon. There's a very delicate sectarian balance there. There was a civil war in Lebanon, as you know, for 17 years, in which the Palestinians played a part. So there are these sorts of sociological factors to take into consideration. These countries have played host to Palestinian refugees since 1948. There's nothing new in it.

    The most sensitive issue that remains for people in the region, as far as refugees are concerned, is the issue of right of return to their homes in Israel, and of course it's been a stumbling block in the peace process. International law says refugees have a right to return to the place they left, and that needs to be recognized first. Whether they do return or not, and how many, and how much compensation there would be can be negotiated.

    Israel is often described in the west as the only democracy in the region. Israel is a democracy if you are a Jew. It's not a democracy if you're an Arab Israeli. Arab Israelis ought to vote also.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I thought they had the right to vote.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: They have the right to vote, but they live as second-class citizens. They don't receive the same kind of funding opportunities. There's a state of quasi-apartheid there. You can talk to people there, and they'll tell you. Palestinians in the West Bank and such areas don't have any rights at all.

    Now, do we just condemn the 22 Arab countries because they're not democratic? What are we trying to achieve? If we want to help them become democratic, then certainly we must recognize that the governments are dictatorial, not democratic, and help those who want to change the system to change it from within.

    And by the way, I did not mean to say that the cultural divide is our fault, or the west's fault. That wasn't my intention. I apologize if I did.

    Women can't drive in Saudi Arabia. I don't think that's a cultural thing. It's very much a politically motivated rule to suppress yet another sector of society. Everyone is oppressed in Saudi Arabia, not just women—though women more than men. And certainly female circumcision is not necessarily an Islamic thing; it's just a tradition that's been carried out through the ages and is not....

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Ms. Khan, do you have something to add?

    Dr. Sheema Khan: Yes, I have, just very briefly.

    Perhaps, Mr. Day, you've read the Orr commission report that came out just last month, which was very critical of the so-called “democracy” Israeli Arabs experience, saying that they are not receiving services or appropriate treatment that a true democracy would provide all its citizens, as a first point.

    Point number two concerns the cultural divide. You mentioned women not driving. That's a cultural divide amongst many Muslim countries. We don't have this practice elsewhere.

    Female circumcision is not an Islamic or a Muslim practice. It occurs in the sub-Sahara, affecting Christians, animists, and Muslims, primarily in the Horn of Africa.

    As far as condemning the dictatorships around “democratic” Israel is concerned, I have yet to see much fuss being made about 400,000 settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, completely contrary to all forms of international law; and we haven't heard anything about them from your party in particular. We've only heard condemnation of what the Palestinians have been doing. It would be of benefit to Canadians of Arab and Muslim descent to hear the opposition speak out against injustices committed by the government of Israel against Palestinians. We only hear one side from the Alliance.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Just to be clear—and I can't govern what the media reports, but we're very clearly on the record—we want to see a peacefully negotiated settlement so that both Palestinians and Israelis can live in their own land in peace and quiet, and in hope for the future.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank both our witnesses.

    Mr. Khouri, I had an opportunity to read your text. As for us, aside from looking closely at certain issues, we also listen attentively to what many witnesses have to say. Now, in your text, two items drew my attention. First, you say that relations among peoples are based on images and perceptions. That is an important statement. Further on, in the chapter on solutions, you mention an international conference.

    Tell us a bit about the constructive effects that an international conference could have, one in which the Canadian government could play a major role.

[English]

    Mr. Raja Khouri: The idea of an international conference was presented as the beginning of a new dialogue. For all the reasons given in my paper, Canada is very well positioned to lead the west in what you might call this new, improved dialogue. The conference can be a first step in that direction. It will allow not just elected representatives like you to interact with people from the other side, but also Canadian academics, researchers, civil society—people who can actually contribute to the development of democracy and human rights in Arab and Muslim countries better if they understand where the other side is coming from and where the help can best be directed.

    We've been good at approaching international aid, saying “Here's $1 million, and here's what you do with it”, rather than taking the approach of asking what the indigenous population identifies as a need and helping them develop it. This is the approach an international conference can help begin.

    We need to look at solutions coming from the grassroots. This approach will allow us to reach out directly to these reformists on the other side and let them tell us how we can help them. I think this is the essence of dialogue.

  (1230)  

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey: If I understand correctly, the solution to the problems involved in fighting terrorism is not purely academic; it has much more to do with good human relations and contacts, as well as the opportunity to exchange views.

[English]

    Mr. Raja Khouri: The best thing we can do to eradicate terrorism is to rob it of any popular base of support. In a vacuum, terrorism cannot survive for too long.

    The sad story is that today there is a popular base for terrorism. You find it among, say, the Palestinians in Gaza, for obvious reasons. You find it in certain areas of the Muslim world, again for the reasons Sheema listed. A just foreign policy, as well as helping eradicate the social reasons that lead people to support terrorism, is the best approach to fighting it. We can keep locking people up forever if we don't deal with these root causes.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. McDonough, you'll have the last question.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chair, I don't know whether our guests or the members of the committee have had an opportunity to read a particularly interesting report in today's Globe and Mail, but it was reported today in The Globe and Mail that the Israeli military chief of staff has stated, and I'm quoting directly, “that current hard-line policies against the Palestinians were working against Israel's 'strategic interest'”. He goes on to say that comprehensive travel restrictions and curfews imposed on Palestinians are actually harming Israel's overall security and that this increases hatred for Israel and strengthens terrorist organizations.

    I raise this for two reasons, really. My experience in visiting the Middle East earlier this year, and in particular Israel and Palestine, was that Jewish or Arab Israelis raising these concerns are met with incredibly strong condemnation. In fact, I think I'm not the only person who has experienced the fact that raising these concerns from observations of what looked like a factory to create, really, extremists and terrorists, when you look at all these repressive measures...that what one encounters very often is an incredible backlash even here at home from our own Canadian, sometimes Israeli, sometimes Jewish, community.

    That has led me to feel that one of the things we have to strive very hard to do is to open up dialogue here in Canada to at least create safe opportunities for frank and open discussion between the Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other faith communities about what is such an intractable problem.

    I know, Ms. Khan, you've said in a way that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bit of a bellwether of whether the status of Muslim countries will be allowed to improve and so on. I'm wondering if you could comment on whether there has been any success achieved through your respective organizations or other initiatives from the Canadian Arab, Canadian Muslim communities to open up that kind of dialogue with the Jewish community in Canada. Are there things that the Canadian government could be doing? Are there things that we as individual parliamentarians should be doing to try to create this kind of dialogue?

    I guess we have both the kind of dialogue that goes on within one's own community, on a citizen-to-citizen basis, as well as the kind of dialogue that one would hope could take place at the level of pan-Canadian leadership in the Canadian Arab, Canadian Muslim, Canadian Jewish, Christian and other faith communities. Can you comment on what's happening in that regard, with what results and what kinds of initiatives could be helpful to support these efforts? And do you think they are promising in any way? Is it realistic?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Who wants to comment?

    Ms. Khan.

    Dr. Sheema Khan: As far as efforts go, I know various sorts of grassroots-level, Jewish-Muslim dialogues have been happening. The problem is that I think you need to have people who...I mean, no one is dispassionate about this issue, but I think there are people who are more dispassionate than others. It's very important, as you said, to allow people....There is pain on both sides, those who are Jewish and who feel very strongly about Israel as well as those who feel strongly about Palestinians. We need to create more, if you like, “dialogue groups”.

    I can't speak for the Jewish community, but I know within the Muslim community there is a serious divide about this issue of suicide bombing. There are a lot of people who are thoroughly against it and there are people who support it as a means of resistance, so there are differences within. There are also differences within with regard to the Palestinian Authority. Many people regard it as a thoroughly corrupt institution, but how do you replace it?

    I think if you're talking about bridging the divide, I don't have any practical solutions. But I agree with you that we must somehow try to bring people together, create safe spaces where you're not condemned for being “anti-Semitic” or you're not condemned for being Islamophobic. If we can get rid of all these labels and just sit down, I think, first, to hear each other's pain...because if people recognize that the loss of a child, whether Palestinian or Israeli, is deeply hurtful on both sides, if we start to see some commonality, I think that would be the start.

    Mr. Raja Khouri: I have a couple of things I'd like to say, Ms. McDonough. Certainly, dialogue here is lacking. It was progressing, actually, when the peace process in the Middle East was progressing. There was a lot of dialogue here taking place at the same time. I remember feeling personally, after the Oslo accord was signed, I wanted to go out and talk to Jews about this specifically.

    Unfortunately, the polarization in the Middle East has led to polarization here. It didn't help that organizations like B'nai Brith, for instance, which is recognized in Canada as a human rights organization, made some public statements or gestures that helped the polarization become even bigger.

    I'll give an example of that. About a year ago, B'nai Brith put an ad in the Ottawa Citizen in which it showed an Arab Canadian with a Canadian passport and a Canadian T-shirt holding a machine gun and a terrorism manual under his arm and some mosques in the background. That was during its campaign to outlaw the Hezbollah. To us, you look at this and say, why are these people doing that? I mean, if we were doing the same thing by putting a stereotypical image of a Jew in a full-page ad in a newspaper, all hell would have broken loose. This doesn't help. I tried to approach them a number of times to talk to them about these issues, but was met with a wall of silence.

    I think Canadians in general should send a message to these types of organizations to say this is not how we do things here, that it's not acceptable.

    The other item I'd like to mention is that Shira Herzog last week in The Globe and Mail wrote about the lack of dialogue within the Jewish community itself about what's going on over there. The community here, by and large, feels that it's compelled to support Israel, no matter what. I think it's wrong of Canadian Jews to behave in that manner. I think if they start having that dialogue, it'll be easier for us and them to have the dialogue as well.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I must thank both witnesses this morning.

[Translation]

    Ms. Khan, thank you very much. I also thank Mr. Khouri for appearing before our committee this morning.

[English]

    Mr. Raja Khouri: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    The Chair: It was much appreciated.

[English]

    You can be sure that we'll send you a copy of our report when it is available.

    For members who are still present here, I want to say that for next Tuesday there are no witnesses scheduled, but we're still going to have a meeting. The meeting will be regarding the report of commercial relations with Asia and the Pacific from the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. It's a report from the subcommittee. We're going to look at that.

    Also, I want to let you know that the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance has asked to meet with us next week. We usually hold a joint meeting with the agriculture and agri-food committee each autumn, but I understand the agriculture and agri-food committee will be meeting with them next Wednesday afternoon. I'd suggest that interested members attend this meeting.

    Next Thursday, Professor Noah Feldman, the author of After Jihad, will appear in front of our committee. Also, the committee may hold a special meeting, probably Wednesday if it's possible, to hear the director of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, Mr. Peter Hanson. This is always in the context of our study on relations with Muslim countries.

    I wanted you to also know that the chair and the members of the Brazilian Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs will be here next week. I want to get your approval, if it's necessary to hold a working meal with them at a convenient time for their schedule.

    I heard from Monsieur Bergeron from the Bloc Québécois that maybe Mr. Sampson will be in Canada next week. I don't have any confirmation. We'll see about the schedule because we don't know what's going to happen in Parliament; there aren't committees after next Friday. I only wanted to let you know about this. We'll play it as it comes.

    Yes, Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for an update on those matters. I have two items I want to raise.

    I did circulate to all members, through the clerk's office, a notice of motion that would, hopefully, result in the foreign affairs committee calling upon the Government of Canada to launch the independent public inquiry into the Maher Arar case.

    It's deeply regrettable, I have to say, that only one hour and a few minutes into this meeting we lost quorum. I believe at one point we did--

    The Chair: We lost quorum for about half an hour.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Yes, then we lost quorum after half an hour. I have to say this is extremely disappointing, if you look at all of the urgent matters this committee is dealing with, including being profoundly disrespectful, frankly, to two outstanding leaders of the Canadian Arab, Canadian Muslim community.

    In any case, obviously this motion can't be dealt with today, but I would like to serve notice that I will bring it forward at the next meeting.

    The Chair: Just to let you know, next Tuesday, because there are no witnesses, we can deal with all motions. We will have more time next Tuesday.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you. I appreciate that.

    There is a second thing I am really in a state of disbelief about, and I guess I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, if there's anything you can do about this. At the very first meeting we held as the subcommittee, we put forward a proposed agenda to the full committee, which was then endorsed by the full committee, calling for the foreign affairs minister to come before the committee. It is absolutely customary that the foreign affairs minister should do so. There are many items of real concern. This was raised again and again in relation to the Arar case. That he is now safely returned to Canada after 374 days of utter traumatization doesn't remove the fact that we need to hear from the foreign affairs minister in relation to this and other matters. I want to ask what the status is of the repeated requests for the foreign affairs minister to appear before the committee.

    The Chair: I want to let you know on this point that yesterday, or the day before yesterday, our clerk wrote to the department to ask when the minister will be available to come before the committee. We're pushing him to try to come.

    Mrs. Carroll is here today. She's going to remind him that he needs to appear before the committee. It is a must. I agree with you.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chairman, I would echo Ms. McDonough's concern.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    That's it.

[Translation]

    The meeting is adjourned.