Debates of March 18th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Canada's Actions to Promote Peace in the Middle East

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I actually visited Anne Frank House when I was in Amsterdam. My dad was a Dutch Jew from Holland, and when I went, a number of years ago, to visit Anne Frank House, I was really moved.

Human rights are human rights; human beings are human beings, and the suffering of one is the suffering of all. I cannot discriminate between whose suffering was worse, that caused by the Holocaust or what we are seeing now. “Never again” means never again. I do not like the fact that I know there are going to be so many Palestinian children who are going to grow up lonely, like I have. I have no family because of genocide: five relatives, including my father. It is lonely. There are no big holiday dinners. That is what I am thinking about, not whose fault it is.

Genocide is genocide. The rule of law is the rule of law. Following international law is following international law. I know that in the Jewish community we have differences that come from a place of deep pain and loss. I lift that pain up and I carry it every single day, but we need to come together in our collective humanity. When is this going to end in the world? When are we going to stop killing each other in the name of victory?

I support my father, Albert Gazan. I am proud to be his daughter, and I am proud to stand today in support of a free Palestine and in support of a just peace for all people throughout the world. I am Albert Gazan's daughter.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been lots of conversations in the House around trying to find balance. In fact, the Conservatives' position has somehow been to try to make this whole thing, all of the atrocities, all of the murders and all of the deaths, to be solely Hamas's fault.

In asking for balance, not once have they acknowledged that Hamas does not own F-16 fighter jets. Hamas does not own 2,000-pound bombs that have been dropped on civilian populations. Hamas did not force people from the north to the south and then threaten to invade Rafah. Hamas did not bomb schools and hospitals.

In finding balance and seeking balance with some of the ridiculous assertions from the Conservative caucus, could the hon. member please reflect on what the imbalance of power and the asymmetry of power and military might looks like in that region and what the legacy of settler colonialism looks like here in this country?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons we are calling for an immediate arms embargo. Why are we providing arms to a state that is being investigated for a potential genocide?

I know what genocide feels like. I know what genocide feels like because of my father, because of my grandmother, who survived Auschwitz. It destroys families. It rids people of histories. I know what genocide looks like in Canada. It rids one of one's family. It creates this space of loneliness, and for what? Who is winning here?

All I see, when I look at both sides, are people dying, kids starving to death and sexual violence. It is bad. It is wrong. I see, daily, a violation of international human rights law. We are talking about human beings. I do not care. These are human beings, deserving of freedom, love, dignity, safety and peace.

Free Palestine.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today in the House, we have had an important debate on an issue that is global in scope and very historic, but also heartbreaking. I know that all points of view expressed in the House come from the heart and from a fundamentally Canadian emotion that drives us to seek peace.

It is very much in this spirit that I move:

That the motion be amended as follows:

(a) in paragraph (ii), by adding the word “being” after the word “victims”;

(b) by replacing paragraph (iii) with the following: “Hamas is a listed terrorist organization in Canada whose attacks on October 7, 2023, killed nearly 1,200 Israelis and that over 100 hostages remain in Hamas captivity”;

(c) in paragraph (iv), by replacing the words “millions of” with the words “1.7 million”;

(d) by adding, after paragraph (vi), the following new paragraph: “all states, including Israel, have a right to defend themselves and in defending itself, Israel must respect international humanitarian law and the price of defeating Hamas cannot be the continuous suffering of all Palestinian civilians”;

(e) by replacing paragraph (viii) with the following: “the increase in extremist settler violence against Palestinians and reports of Palestinian communities being forcibly removed from their lands in the West Bank”;

(f) by replacing paragraph (a) with the following: “demand an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and Hamas must lay down its arms”;

(g) by replacing paragraph (b) with the following: “cease the further authorization and transfer of arms exports to Israel to ensure compliance with Canada’s arms export regime and increase efforts to stop the illegal trade of arms, including to Hamas”;

(h) by replacing paragraph (c) with the following: “ensure continued funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to meet the dire humanitarian need, engage with the United Nations internal investigation and independent review process, and ensure implementation of necessary long-term governance reforms and accountability measures”;

(i) in paragraph (d) by deleting the words “, and support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court”;

(j) by adding, after paragraph (d), the following new paragraph: “support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court”;

(k) by replacing paragraph (f) with the following: “ensure Canadians trapped in Gaza can reach safety in Canada and expand access to the temporary resident visa program”;

(l) by replacing paragraph (g) with the following: “sanction extremist settlers and maintain sanctions on Hamas leaders”;

(m) by replacing paragraph (h) with the following: “reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution, and advocate for an end to the decades long occupation of Palestinian territories”; and

(n) by replacing paragraph (i) with the following: “work with international partners to actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution, and maintain Canada’s position that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security with its neighbours”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to inform the hon. member that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Therefore, I will ask the member for Edmonton Strathcona if she consents to the amendment being moved.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do consent.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that pertains to the relevancy of this amendment. On page 541 of chapter 12, Bosc and Gagnon says that an amendment may not be in order if “it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice”.

This morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood in this place and talked about how this motion would substantively alter Canada's foreign policy positions on matters of grave urgency to the entire world. This amendment has been dropped with, to my point of order, substantive changes to the original motion, which no member in this place has had a chance to look at or debate since it was provided to the Table.

For example, for your consideration, it is adding, after paragraph (vi), a new paragraph on Israel and its right to defend itself; adding paragraph (d), support the work of the International Criminal—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Could the hon. member summarize that?

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, amendment (m) reads, “reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles”. These are all major substantive amendments to the scope of the original motion. As I argued, and as said on page 541 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, this materially “introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion”.

Given that it is major public policy for Canada, peer nations are going to be watching this debate, watching this table drop at seven o'clock—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to confer with the Table for a few moments.

I appreciate the hon. member's input. We have been debating this at length all day long. I believe that the amendments, as they have been presented, are in order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the key thing here is that we cannot expand the scope to take in more subject matter than was in the original motion. We see that one of the amendments proposed by the government would expand to deal with settlements on the West Bank. This is not a motion about the West Bank. It is about Gaza. Indulging in a discussion about aspects of Israeli policy that deal with some other area, with Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the occupation of the Golan, is outside the original scope.

It is very nice that the government would like to add the settlements on the West Bank. Perhaps they should have been in the original motion, but they are not. They are part of a separate topic. The government cannot now violate parliamentary practices based on the fact that its members think they should have been included.

The government should have debated this before introducing the motion and not change it now at the end of debate. That is well beyond the scope of the original motion.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to echo the sentiments and frustrations that have been expressed by my colleagues across the aisle. I think what you are hearing is a concern that the very elaborate amendments that have just been introduced by the government House leader have not been debated. There has been no notice, and this is very detailed.

In the meantime, we have an underlying motion that has been put forward by the NDP, which has been the subject of debate. I feel obliged to add that, on behalf of my constituents in Eglinton—Lawrence, my plan was to vote against the underlying motion of the NDP for reasons that I would otherwise state.

I would say that this is a point of order that should be explored and carefully studied. I would argue that it potentially offends member's privileges in terms of being able to debate the very motions that we are asked to vote on.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois cannot take a position on the government's amendment because we do not have a French version of the amendment.

We simply cannot take a position at the moment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Hopefully we will have a translation soon enough. Perhaps we could pause for at least two minutes to see how soon we could have a translated version of the amendment.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill on the same point of order.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to echo my colleague's comments on the scope of this, as to including the West Bank issue, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. We are being asked to vote on a matter that is material to Canadian foreign policy, and we do not have it in both official languages.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the point of view of the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

This was tabled after the entire debate had concluded. How can there be such substantive amendments that nobody has had the chance to see or debate at all? It offends my privileges and the privileges of the people of Mount Royal.

Sitting Suspended

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am going to pause for a couple of minutes to look at this appropriately.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 7:29 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 8:10 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will hear from a few more people on the point of order.

The hon. opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, in the moment, you might have made a ruling. It is common for Chair occupants to do this, before necessarily hearing arguments, when it is expected to be of a routine nature.

However, as many Chair occupants have had to deal with in the past, when parties raise substantive objections after an initial ruling, the Speaker can go back and take a look at it in light of the objections raised. In that spirit, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will seriously consider the points that I am about to raise.

First, we should talk about how we got here. Normally, under the motion that was adopted to guide votes in the House, there is a provision that any recorded division that is demanded is deferred until the next sitting day. First and foremost, that would be the normal course of events. Today is the allotted day for the NDP. If that happened normally, at the end of the day, the Speaker would interrupt and defer the vote until the next day. All members would have the opportunity to study the main motion and any amendments that were received.

That is not happening today for a very particular reason: On the sitting day prior to the two-week constituency break, all parties agreed to not sit on the Friday after the passing of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. In order to facilitate the respect being given to former prime minister Mulroney, all parties agreed to a couple of things.

The NDP agreed to have their opposition day today, Monday, instead of the Friday before that break period. In exchange for that, Conservatives agreed to a motion that would require the vote to be held at the end of the day. That was a good faith measure in order to accommodate the spirit of all MPs who were paying tribute to a deceased prime minister. That was granted.

Now we find ourselves, today, literally at the eleventh hour of the debate, with a massive change to the motion. We are not just talking about a slight amendment to a coming into force date or tweaking a number here or there. We are talking about 14 substantive amendments to the main motion. Many of these rise to the level of what I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule out of scope. They rise to the level of having the same effect as defeating the motion itself. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on this, saying that to have such a substantive amendment that it completely changes the nature of the original motion is out of order.

The proper way of dealing with a motion that is unacceptable to a member of Parliament is to vote against it. If there is a small adjustment that could be made to accommodate one group, one desire or one perspective or another, that is one thing. This happens all the time. There are amendments moved at committees and on the floor.

However, the jurisprudence from the Speaker on altering the main motion so dramatically is very clear. Rather than seeking to amend that motion, the proper course of action is for MPs to vote against the motion, defeat it and come back with a substantive motion that would incorporate the changes that any member was seeking.

As I go through the list, the first one is so glaring. The original motion calls on the Government of Canada to unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine. The amendment is so different, and it is not just my view. I think any fair reading of the motion would say that this has the effect of negating the original motion.

Amendment (m) seeks to replace paragraph (h) with the following: “reaffirm that settlements are illegal under international law and that settlements and settler violence are serious obstacles to a negotiated two-state solution, and advocate for an end to the decades long occupation of Palestinian territories”. That is substantially different from unilaterally recognizing the state of Palestine.

Amendment (n) seeks to replace paragraph (i) with the following: “work with international partners to actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including towards the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution”.

That is so different. The original motion just says that Canada would recognize the state of Palestine. The amended motion says that it would work toward achieving that goal, work toward a negotiated two-state solution, which by the way is the long-standing position of previous governments. That change is no mere grammatical or semantic change. It is the crux of what is being debated today.

It is a major point in the debate that has been carried all day today, so to bring that amendment forward in the form of a last-minute amendment to the main motion rises to the level of being so out of scope and so fundamentally altering the nature of the main motion that it should be ruled out of order.

I could go on and on. There was no notice of this. We, in the opposition, negotiated in good faith before the break week to accommodate the NDP supply day. We agreed to hold the vote at the end of the day. Normally, this vote would have happened tomorrow. At the very least, there should have been some kind of notice.

I believe this calls for the Speaker to rule this amendment out of order, or at the very least, to use the power of the Chair to defer the vote until tomorrow, where in so doing all MPs would have time to absorb these massive changes and vote on them. In essence, give members of Parliament the time they would have had if the normal course of the parliamentary calendar unfolded with supply days and deferred votes.

I strongly object to this amendment being ruled in order. I urge the Speaker to reconsider this in light of the precedents I cited and the aspects of the amendment that contradict in such a direct way the essence of the main motion. At the very least, and I do not want to give the Speaker an alternative to what I just suggested because that is the main thrust of the argument, use the power the Speaker has to so order the flow of business to defer the vote until tomorrow, after which MPs will have had the time to examine exactly what is before them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important that we recognize that it was on March 1 that the House made an order indicating that we would be having the vote today at 7:15 p.m., an hour ago. Every member understood before the recess that the vote would be taking place this evening.

The other issue I have is this: Take a look at the purpose of opposition days and at the process we have witnessed today. There is no new element being introduced to the motion, and I will expand on that right away. What is important is to recognize the process that has gotten us to this point.

The NDP introduced a motion. There was a great deal of debate on it. There were all sorts of crossover discussions taking place, and at the end of the day, the government House leader moved an amendment. That amendment, which is completely within scope, was accepted by the member for Edmonton Strathcona. The Speaker reread the amendment and then ruled that it was, in fact, in order, as has been done previously on many different opposition days.

I take exception when members opposite try to give the false impression that it is out of scope. Let me give a very specific example. When they stood on the point of order to try to filibuster a vote, they made reference to the fact that the Gaza issue is a very important aspect of the amendment. Let us go to what the motion actually says about Gaza and ask how they could imply that the amendment would in any way be out of scope.

I would refer people to part (viii): “the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months”. How could they say that an amendment dealing with the West Bank is, in fact, out of scope, when it is actually in the motion that has been presented?

We can go further, to part (g): “ban extremist settlers”. Again, how could we not identify that this is also a part of Gaza?

I go to part (h): “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution”.

I would argue against the very premise. After the Speaker agreed everything was in order, and the vote was just about to occur, a member stood up and brought up an issue, saying that the amendment is not within scope. In fact it is, and Gaza is actually mentioned, if members had listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she made her presentation to the House, and to where other members even make reference to both Gaza and the West Bank.

I would suggest not only that it is within the scope but also that we have an order from March 1 saying that the vote should occur today at 7:15 p.m. I would suggest that we get on with it and vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

A number of people want to get up about this, and I want to ask all of them to be very judicious and very short in their questions with respect to the point of order before us.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three points.

First of all, to add to the point of order that has been made about decorum, the reality is that what happened here on a major issue of foreign policy is that the Liberals came in with a substantive amendment that would change seven out of nine components of the original motion, including changing the unilateral recognition of Palestine to something else, on the back of a napkin, and told the NDP what to do.

Point two is that anybody voting by app tonight will not have had a chance to see this, so there are going to be people at home who will not have seen it.

The last component is language. This is one of the most substantive amendments that has been tabled in the House on a major point of foreign policy. Our peer nations are watching this. They are going to think this Parliament is a complete joke, because the government is coming in at the end and table-dropping the motion and expecting Parliament to vote on it.

This sends a poor message to our peer nations, and the amendment should be ruled out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a few more comments; keep them very short.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will just refer to Chapter 12 of our procedure book by Bosc and Gagnon, the 2017 edition, which says, “An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if...it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”.

I draw your attention again to the original motion in paragraph (i), which is on the official recognition of the state of Palestine, and then go to what the amendment says. I will go back to the very last part of paragraph (n), which says, “maintain Canada's position that Israel has a right to exist”.

Defeating the original motion, the motion that was debated all day long in the House, would have our position go back to what is the official position of the Government of Canada and has been for the last couple of decades. The amendment is out of order procedurally and should be ruled as such by you as Chair.