FAIT Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
| ¿ | 0925 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)) |
| Á | 1130 |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) |
| Á | 1145 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.) |
| Á | 1150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
| Á | 1155 |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Scott Brison |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1200 |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Hon. Art Eggleton |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0925)
[Translation]
The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): Mr. Stockwell Day.
Á 
(1130)
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I would like to move my motion related to the suicide bombing motion. There has been one suggestion from Ms. McDonough, if she wants to pursue it, relating to a slight amendment on that particular motion.
As you are aware, an all-party committee has taken this intention forward. A press conference was held earlier in the week. We've noted the fact that we're trying to make this non-partisan. There have been discussions already with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice—obviously I'm not speaking for them. They are open to this suggestion that the present act, which includes crimes against humanity, record or list the notion of suicide bombing as an addition.
Similar motions are moving ahead at the European Parliament. A delegation has also presented this at the Vatican, with a positive reception there, and similarly in the United States, in the Congress also. I would see this as something where people can show solidarity. It is non-partisan, and I hope I find approval for the majority of this.
I'll let Ms. McDonough speak to that particularly.
The Chair Okay.
Madame McDonough.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's very much in the spirit of the cross-partisan or multi-partisan collaboration on this--I don't like the term “non-partisan”-- to suggest the following friendly amendment, because I think it is very much contained in the initiative that took place yesterday. It would read: “following suicide bombing directed at innocent civilians”.
Á (1135)
The Chair: Mr. Day and Madame Redman.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chair, I would like to comment that I'm open to that friendly amendment.
The Chair: Okay.
Do you want to repeat your amendment first, Ms. McDonough?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: The amendment would be inserted following “bombings”. It would read “directed at innocent civilians” and continue on as “be declared...”.
The Chair: Okay.
Mrs. Redman, then Madame Lalonde.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you.
Mine is just a question on process, Mr. Chair, because I certainly have no problem supporting this.
Would this then be reported to the House of Commons by you? I'm wondering what kind of obligation the government has to deal with this. Are there timelines, or is this something you're doing in the spirit of the motion?
The Chair: If the motion is passed, it's going to be brought to the House of Commons by the chair, but there is no obligation for the government to go ahead with this.
Madame Lalonde, Mr. Brison, Madame Marleau.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I was going to move the same amendments as Ms. McDonough but as this is the day after, or two days after, the assassination of Sheik Yassin, I would prefer that the Foreign Affairs committee wait, and I will tell you why.
We are at the Foreign Affairs committee and these people are from the Department of Justice, according to what I am told. At Foreign Affairs we know that adopting such a text at this time would have a political implication. I am not saying that it would have a partisan implication, but a political meaning. It seems to me that to give this motion all of the meaning it has in the Amnesty International report, for instance, we would have to remind people that Amnesty International, a respected group, has carried out a study on Israel's military activities, denouncing war crimes and crimes against humanity. A study was then carried out on the organization of suicide missions, activities that are denounced by Amnesty International; the study talks about those who go and recruit young people and older people to carry out the suicide missions, and of those who pay the families.
As this text has a political meaning, either we give it all of that meaning, that is the one I have just described, or we wait a little. I am going to vote in favour of this, but I would prefer that we defer it a little, for instance to next week.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Brison.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): I have a quick point.
I'd like some clarification from Mr. Day on how this strengthens Canada's position. I think that's important because we have an unequivocal position in opposition to terrorism as a party and supporter of the 1997 UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, which is a specific legal instrument. There are 199 state parties and a further 58 signatories to it internationally. We ratified that convention in December 2001.
I'd like to know what we would actually be accomplishing in terms of adopting this. While there are discussions around this, wouldn't we be the first country to actually adopt this formally?
Mr. Stockwell Day: I would have to do some research and see if we are indeed the first one to adopt it formally. I'd hesitate to give an answer on that.
If that was the case, I don't know that it should cause us to pause. We would like to be seen as leaders in a policy that's effective.
Let me check.
Á (1140)
Hon. Scott Brison: I think notionally, in the spirit of it, how can a person be against the complete unequivocal condemnation of suicide bombing? Already, as a country, our international position is expressed clearly in opposition to terrorist bombing. I'm only trying to grapple with how this strengthens it.
Mr. Stockwell Day: It strengthens it from this point of view; there is a direct reference to suicide bombing. We also talk in the news release--which maybe you haven't seen, and I could have circulated it here--about planning, organizing, and funding. I believe that it's in concert with the recommendations that we have approved, especially as related to Saudi Arabia.
You mentioned the notion of how anyone could be against it. I would repeat the question to you. How can you be against it?
It's not only rhetoric. It really is zeroing in on the aspect that has gripped the world, really, especially with what happened in Spain. On this notion of suicide bombing and our opposition to it being clear, if this is internationalized by making it a crime against humanity, it would give some added legal weight.
For instance, I'll use the Milosevic example. Because there were certain things at the international level in terms of crimes that he was committing, there is the ability actually to even apprehend him. Though notional and incremental, it would give added incentive and an added deterrent.
If somebody knew now that internationally they're planning a suicide bombing or encouraging a suicide bombing, it could actually give some force to a body within their own country, maybe the Palestinian Authority. Yasser Arafat has said that he would like to have more ability to move against this.
It takes it forward. Maybe it's notional, maybe it's incremental, but it adds some weight to this very devastating aspect of suicide bombing itself. Terrorist bombings, of course, would take on different forms. For the suicide bombings, it gives that added ability.
Hon. Scott Brison: It's kind of hard to bring a suicide bomber to justice, in some ways.
Mr. Stockwell Day: For those who plan, those who recruit, we know now that the recruiting has moved to children.
At this level, without getting into a lot of specifics, this shows the committee support for the notion. When we begin the work with the justice minister, adding the planning, recruitment, and funding would be effective instruments at that time.
The Chair: Madame Marleau, Monsieur Bergeron, and Monsieur Obhrai.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Well, I feel that this is not a good time to bring forward a motion such as this, as much as all of us condemn suicide bombings. In light of what has occurred, I feel it would send a strong message of support to one side and not the other. I'm worried about that, because in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there are no saints. It's an eye for an eye, and after awhile you both get blind. I'm very concerned with not saying anything about the part the Israelis have played in further destabilizing the conditions in the Palestinian area. I'm extremely concerned with the timing of this.
As Madame Lalonde said, Amnesty International supports this, but they also add other condemnations as well. I think we have to be very careful. If we want to see an end to this problem of the destabilization of the Middle East, which is a major problem, it isn't through passing a motion like this that we're going to solve the problem. At this time, it may hurt it even further. I'm extremely worried about this by itself right now.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, like my colleagues, I want to say at the outset that I am of course favourable to the amendment moved by Ms. McDonough. I am personally favourable to the motion as amended, but I am also wondering about the timeliness of passing said motion here at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs; it seems to me that this has more to do with the Justice committee than the Foreign Affairs committee, for one thing.
For another, as members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs we have to position ourselves in relation to Canada's official foreign policy, which of course condemns suicide missions against civilians but which also condemns Israel's actions against civilian populations in Palestine. As Ms. Lalonde and Ms. Marleau pointed out, it is true that this motion is in keeping with recommendations made by Amnesty International, but it is also true that Amnesty International has taken up a very hard-line position condemming certain activities of the State of Israel which is practising State terrorism by using its army against civilian populations.
I would also consider that the fact of our speaking out solely against suicide missions against civilians would be tantamount to favouring one of the parties concerned to the detriment of the other. If we have a position to take with regard to suicide missions against civilians, which would seem to me to be the thing we should do, we should at the same time speak out against armed attacks against civilian populations in Palestinian territories. This would appear to be in keeping with the Canadian government's balanced position, on the one hand, and is closer to my own opinions on the matter.
I am deeply opposed to suicide missions against civilian populations, just as I am strongly opposed to using professional armies, with all of the means at their disposal, against civilian populations. Should we adopt this motion, I would not like people to read into it that by so doing, I or anyone around this table spoke out against one of the camps only and not the other.
Á (1145)
[English]
The Chair: We'll hear from Mr. Obhrai, Mr. Eggleton, and then Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): What happened yesterday was very unfortunate. As I listen, the whole focus seems to be addressing the Middle East—Israel and Palestine—but let me tell you, that is not the case. We have Chechnya. People have died in Chechnya. Our own soldier has given a price to a suicide bomber in Afghanistan. Tamil Tigers use suicide bombers and young children. They killed the Prime Minister of India with a suicide bombing. So just to equate that suicide bombing is because of this thing that is going on in Palestine and just focusing on this whole thing over there is to lose the essence of the thing.
What we really need to say is that no matter in what part of the world these suicide bombings take place, they are a crime against humanity. We need to put out the word, because the publicity that goes out is that suicide bombing by itself is not acceptable to the world. That's all. That's the message this is giving.
That is why Alexa McDonough's amendment of “innocent civilians” is very important to this thing. We are just sending a simple message out there that suicide bombing, no matter where it occurs in the world, is a crime against humanity. Let's not put this whole suicide bombing into the context of Israel and Palestine only. It's happening everywhere else, and we do not want it to spread.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Eggleton.
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): I'm going to support the motion with the amendment.
I agree with what Deepak just said, that we should not just look at this in the context of the Middle East. It happens very frequently in Israel, as we know. But it happens in Iraq very frequently; it happened in Spain recently; it has happened in Afghanistan; on September 11 there were suicide bombers, in the context of taking planes into the World Trade Center.
This kind of activity against innocent civilians has become a prominent part of the terrorism we experience today. It's become a plague upon our society. I think it should be singled out and should be in fact treated in the way that is suggested here, that suicide bombings directed at innocent civilians be declared a crime against humanity. I support doing that.
There are other things. I realize there's concern raised about what has happened with the killing of the Hamas leader. I'm sorry, I consider that person to be very evil. That person counselled the destruction of Israel, counselled the destruction of all Israelis. He actually was one of the masterminds behind suicide bombings. So Israel, in its defence, is in fact carrying out action with respect to the people who are responsible for suicide bombing.
If there are other aspects of these issues that you want to bring forward, fine; we can consider them at the time and talk about them at the time. But I think this is worthy of our support today. Notwithstanding the good comments that were made by my colleagues over on this side of the table, I think it's worthy of our support.
Á (1150)
The Chair: I have Mr. Fitzpatrick, Madame McDonough, and Mr. Brison.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): I'm seeking some clarification, because murder is the worst form of crime there is. It's already in the Criminal Code. I agree that the principal in the offence is deceased, and we can't charge him and bring him before the courts. But unless I'm missing something, everyone who's involved in that process—the funding and the organizing and so on—could be charged as a party to the offence and be charged with first degree murder under our law.
I guess I'm searching for the purpose here, because I don't think there is a defect in our Criminal Code to deal with this sort of problem; the laws are already there. I guess I'm searching for some other explanation for why we would be pursuing this matter.
I'm undecided which way I would go on the issue, but I want to know what the intent, beyond our Criminal Code, would be on this thing. Murder is a crime against humanity.
The Chair: Ms. McDonough.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Just to pick up on the question raised, I think there was a genuine all-party effort to come together and recognize, with no reference to any particular incident of suicide bombing directed at innocent civilians, that it was in order for there to be a clear statement of condemnation of this phenomenon.
I have to say, though, that I shared with other of my colleagues concern about the possibility and truly accidental timing this comes forward with today—or frankly, that the press conference and the statement issued yesterday happened in the immediate aftermath of an event that is truly horrifying from all points of view but ought not to be seen as complicating what the intention was around this particular statement in the first place.
I think the discussion that's now been held really underscores the reason why, in order not to create misunderstanding about the timing, perhaps the wisest position we could take and the one most in the spirit of the multi-partisan effort in the first place, would be to agree to delay and deal with it on a further date. I say that as someone who proposed an amendment to try to at least mitigate the possible misunderstanding that could be created, but I think really, in view of the discussion and without prejudice to future dealing with it, there is good faith emerging in the spirit of consensus to delay dealing with it so as not to create misunderstanding.
The Chair: Mr. Brison.
Hon. Scott Brison: This is where Mr. Day can help me. How is a suicide bombing more heinous than a regular terrorist bombing that's aimed at innocent civilians? That's what I'm grappling with. I know there's an international movement that's working on it, so I assume there's a logical reason, and I share the same concerns. While we recognize this is not a specific Arab-Israeli or Palestinian-Israeli issue--
Á (1155)
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): There's the Madrid bombing, for instance. How does it differ?
Hon. Scott Brison: How does it differ? When it comes to Israel, for instance, you and I share a very similar perspective on that. What I'm grappling with is how the loss of innocent lives through terrorist bombings is something we as a country have condemned universally, and without exception every parliamentarian would agree with that. I'm just trying to understand that.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Thanks. There have been excellent comments all around.
In terms of terrorist bombings vis-à-vis suicide bombings, Timothy McVeigh's was a terrorist bombing, and he survived it because he didn't put himself in the back of that Ryder truck.
This is worded in such a way as to give maximum flexibility not just to the Minister of Foreign Affairs but actually to the Minister of Justice when we talk about the network. As we know, suicide bombing and its network of support and recruitment are advancing significantly and in a frightening way into the school systems, which is why we've addressed some of this in our recommendations here today.
That's one of the key differences here: it's the network. Some of you may have seen this in the news. A number of years ago a large ranch bordering the northern end of my constituency was purchased by someone who has now been identified by a number of intelligence services, including Canada's, as a Saudi Arabian businessmen who was possibly in the network flow of funding--I'm choosing my words carefully here--terrorist operations. This starts to come very close to home.
We talk about suicide bombing and the networks, which are right now reaching out to draw young people in, which is, as I said, especially frightening. There were some indications last week, some reports coming out about young people being drugged and drawn into these networks and sent to their death. This is where there are some distinctive differences.
On the issue of timing, I understand the sensitivity. However, if we expose ourselves to the violent and vile action of groups and predicate the timing of what we want to do about that on their actions, we send a very dangerous message forward. I sympathize with and my heart goes out to the people of Spain, but the timing of that, just before the election, sends a frightening message to bombing networks, to suicide bombers, to terrorist networks around the world. It could be debated whether that particular bombing affected the outcome of the election, but there's a very strong view that in fact it did.
But for us to hold off now and to say we have to wait for a better time...we have no guarantee of what the IDF is going to do tomorrow and we have no guarantee of what Hamas is going to do tomorrow. If we subject this to an issue of timing, I think we're treading on dangerous ground. We're suggesting that as long as nobody in a particular dispute does anything that might reflect or paint this issue, we'll take it forward.
The issue is now. Countries, including Canada, are concerned and want to know that everything possible is being done to provide the equipment, the legislative and judicial tools, to apprehend those who would even be in the planning process.
Richard Marceau had an excellent response yesterday in the news conference. Obviously we all felt terrible about that news conference yesterday in light of what had happened. A reporter asked him, what about this recent hit on Sheik Yassin? I thought his response was good; he said, had this been in place not just here but internationally, then possibly Mr. Arafat and others could have taken steps to apprehend or arrest those recruiting, planning, and encouraging those who were involved in suicide bombings.
Again, I just want to say my feelings reflect what Deepak has said here. There is no intention to focus on the Middle East. This is happening in Spain. This happened in Bali. This is happening everywhere.
The Chair: Okay. I want to pinpoint it, if you agree.
Hon. Scott Brison: In Madrid, were those suicide bombs?
The Chair: Okay. I'm not going to close it. I only want to say, you talk about a network, and that's fine--a network. But as Scott mentioned, in Madrid the guy comes with his bag, leaves the bag in a train, and walks out. He's not a suicide bomber, but even with tough luck, the bomber who blows himself up inside a train is a suicide bomber.
For me, I understand where you're going. I understand very well. But there are two things that I don't like from this resolution.
The first one for me, as chair, is on the wording “to support the request of a member of the House of Commons”. I think that we're over the House of Commons in a certain way. Next time if we say in a resolution that the foreign affairs committee declares that the global scourge of bombings, including suicide bombing, is a crime against humanity on civilian persons, at that time I think we would all agree with something like this. Do you understand what I mean?
But to say that we're pushing some of our members...I think that I'm over that. We do what we think is good to be done as a committee, as the foreign affairs committee. We come up with a resolution that all types of bombings, the scourge of bombing everywhere in the world, including suicide bombing, against civilian people is a crime against humanity, period--or something like that.
 (1200)
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chair, if we talk about all types of bombings, we implicate Canadians in Kosovo in the bombing. This is clearly suicide bombing.
The Chair: Terrorist bombing--we could find the word, but that's where I think we should go.
Hon. Art Eggleton: Terrorism directed against innocent civilians.
The Chair: Yes, against civilians, that's what I mean.
If we can reword it and get two or three people from all parties to redraft it, I think we're going to find a consensus for Thursday morning.
Mr. Stockwell Day: If we only talk about terrorist bombing, we do nothing to address this growing network--I call it a cancer, and it's clearly not confined to the Middle East--of people educating, recruiting, encouraging, and inspiring the act not of leaving a bomb but of becoming a suicide bomber. That is the very specific action that is being counselled, encouraged, and funded. That's why it needs to be singled out for special treatment.
The Chair: Now, do we agree to postpone it or are we going to vote?
Mr. Stockwell Day: We need to, yes.
Is someone is putting the motion to table? Is that what's happening?
The Chair: No, no. I ask you, if it's tabled, whether you want to vote on the motion, but I could have an amendment to postpone it.
Mr. Stockwell Day: If it's with the intention of coming back on Thursday morning with the possibility of improved.... You know, in the opposition, we are subject to an election call at some time. We're not privy to when that will happen. Anything can happen.
Mr. Chairman, is this with the intention of it coming back on Thursday?
The Chair: It's with the intention of coming back on Thursday. We all agree on this.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Can I make it more clear?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Stockwell Day: I will bring this back on Thursday in its present form, unless some people talk to me and we come up with some different wording. Okay?
So it's coming back on Thursday.
The Chair: We're coming back on Thursday.
We are adjourned.