Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 4th, 2021

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I know we're on the subamendment. I'll just say first that I support the amendment that was introduced by Mr. Oliphant, but I cannot support the subamendment moved by Madam McPherson. I think it stretches credulity to say that it was in error, so I personally won't be supporting the subamendment. However, I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is an important motion, and I'm happy to support the amendment, as Mr. Chong has said.

The subamendment's implication that this is kind of a one-off typo—something that has never happened before—just doesn't really reflect the realities of the legitimate and serious long-standing concerns that have been associated with UNRWA. There are legitimate different views on how to respond to that, but it's not as if somebody just accidentally mistranscribed something and the language appeared there, right?

This is a question about material that was put in the textbook—not a typo or an accident. I think the amendment from Mr. Oliphant reflects that reality. The subamendment does not.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I do support Mr. Oliphant's amendment. I don't support the subamendment.

I don't know if all of you have had a chance to go through the report that triggered this, but there's a January 2021 report from IMPACT on this. It's a 46-page report. If you read it in its entirety, it's damning. It's indicative of a pattern of behaviour, if you will, going back a number of years, but it is mostly focused on the current events.

I think, given the comprehensive analysis in this report, it behooves us to take it at face value and have an appropriate debate on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morantz.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do believe that we should have debate, but it's very hard for me to debate something that I am not a part of. I have read what UNRWA has said with respect to this, and I simply have decided that I think we need to take that for what they say—so I'd be supportive of Ms. McPherson's amendment—and then continue to work with UNRWA to ensure it never happens again.

Absolutely, we want to ensure that there are appropriate educational materials, that we do not tolerate anti-Semitism in any fashion, and that we expect all the materials that Canadian dollars are being spent on to uphold that as well. I think that adding “in error” does not diminish that whatsoever; it simply acknowledges what UNRWA has told us. I think we need to keep pushing UNRWA always to ensure they're doing their work in the way that we and our international partners want them to do it, but I don't think it serves anybody to not take them at their word for what they're saying.

That's why I will be in support of the subamendment and then the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to read a bit from the statement that UNRWA provided, because Mr. Morantz does bring up the point that we should take reports at face value. The report we were provided actually points to the fact that some of this material had previously been identified already as not being in line with UN values and was mistakenly included and states:

As soon as the issue was identified, the Agency conducted a thorough review of the entirety of the self-learning material that UNRWA developed and took steps to address it.

It also states:

In order to ensure that all educational materials provided to students are those which have been approved by the Agency as in line with UN principles and values, the Agency developed an innovative, secure Agency-wide self-learning platform which will contain all of the learning materials for UNRWA students. Currently in its final review process, the platform will be launched in coming days.

They are not only apologizing for the error, but they are clearly identifying that it is an error, and they are taking steps to ensure that error doesn't happen again. I think it's important that we acknowledge that and we recognize that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Mr. Morantz.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you for that, Ms. McPherson.

I do appreciate the argument. I don't know if you've had a chance to go through the 46-page impact report in detail to see the magnitude of, essentially, the offences. I could go through some of the points here, but it would take some time. I don't know if the committee would allow that time.

It's important that when you look at the report as a whole—as my colleague Mr. Chong said—it really stretches credulity to say that this was an error. However, having said that, I would be willing to propose a friendly amendment to the subamendment.

Instead of saying “in error”, I would propose a friendly amendment that would say, “which UNRWA claims was an error”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morantz.

We'll go to Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I can accept that. I don't want to split hairs on this. I want us to get on with it. I think the fact that they have claimed that it's error.... It's actually probably true that we can't be the judge and arbiter of that. It allows them to say it was an error. It allows the reader of this motion to accept the fact that it may not have been. I choose to believe it was an error because I am trying to work with UNRWA to make sure they don't do this again.

I think that is a reasonable suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'm sorry that I temporarily lost communication. I was a little too quick to rush into the in camera meeting. I can now take part in the debate.

I had the chance to let Mr. Chong know that I would be supporting his motion. By the way, I'm very pleased that there are amendments. However, I just want to point out that I'm a little unhappy that we're in this situation simply because the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, admitted that it made a mistake.

To add to the statement made by the minister, it seems that we're seeing some overkill when we know perfectly well that the UNRWA plays an absolutely crucial role for many Palestinian refugees who need the organization's support. We also know, since we've made note of this as part of the committee's work, that the organization is experiencing significant financial issues and that, by repeatedly attacking it in this manner, we'll only increase the financial difficulties that the organization may face.

You'll say that a mistake was made and that it wasn't a minor error. We should expect that an organization that receives public funding will be held accountable for managing the money. I fully agree with that. This makes me think that we, as members of Parliament, are facing another somewhat similar situation. You have probably all received emails from civil society organizations complaining about the Israeli consulate in Toronto promoting Israeli army enlistment. This is against Canadian law, which prohibits the enlistment of Canadian citizens in foreign armed forces, or at least foreign armed forces from recruiting on Canadian soil.

The Israeli consulate in Toronto said that this was a mistake. We then decided to not make a big deal out of it. The consulate went on to say that it wasn't entirely a mistake, because the advertising for Israeli army recruitment was primarily—I would even say exclusively—aimed at Israeli citizens living in Canada, not Canadians.

As long as we take the word of the Israeli consular authorities, I don't think that there's any point in making further statements. On the contrary, I think that we're making unnecessary further comments about an extremely unfortunate situation. The minister has already had the opportunity to speak publicly about the situation on behalf of the Government of Canada. This led the UNRWA to admit that it was a mistake and to implement mechanisms to prevent this type of mistake from happening again.

In my opinion, the matter is closed. I'm a little unhappy that we're in this situation today. That said, I acknowledge that my colleagues are entitled to bring this type of issue before the committee. We'll be voting, and I'll start by saying that I'll be voting in favour of the amendment and the subamendment. If my colleague, Ms. McPherson, accepts the friendly amendment moved by Mr. Morantz, I'll also vote in favour of the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Just before we go to Ms. Saks and Dr. Fry, from a procedural perspective there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. We will have to deal with the amendment as it was introduced, but let's see where the conversation goes.

Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I too have read the IMPACT-se report in its entirety. I think the amendment as it stands, with the subamendments and the suggestions, highlights really our intention. I agree with MP Oliphant on this. We do want to make it clear that we expect accountability. We do acknowledge that an error was made. We accept that UNRWA is taking responsibility for that error and knows that it needs to report back to us.

As we go through this conversation, I would just like to highlight, perhaps to Mr. Morantz, that UNRWA does not produce textbooks. It produces supplementary materials. The heart of the problem is really textbooks that circulate within the jurisdictions. This is something that we have limited control of in the context of this room, of this committee. Recognizing that, however, I do know that the minister and those who are working on the investigation process are diving deep into really the source of the problem so that we can encourage neutrality in the programs that we support on behalf of the children being educated and that are under the responsibility of UNRWA.

I do agree with Monsieur Bergeron that supporting refugees is critical. These are populations that are part of our role as a global citizen to support. They are communities in crisis and in conflict, which UNRWA does serve. In that role, we have an important role to play in ensuring that neutrality does stay. If we don't continue with the funding that we have, if we don't continue our partnerships to help support neutrality in the region, then.... As an Israeli citizen myself, I can't express enough the need to have good partners on the ground who are supporting neutral culture and neutral practices, from the education of children right on through civil society.

So I support both the amendments. Hopefully, we can move forward with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Saks.

Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much.

I won't really repeat what everyone said. I agree with Rob Oliphant. I agree with what Ms. Saks said. I agree with what Stéphane Bergeron said. I can support the subamendment, but I just think we need to be very careful that we continue to support, as Ms. Saks says, neutral people who are trying to help on the ground. It's fairly difficult when you have differing views and differing conflicts.

I think we could get around this and talk about the subamendment, which I think you'd get full support for, but I think we need to also try to remember how things really work in zones in which there is conflict, with differing opinions and everything. Again, we cannot interfere with the sovereignty of a country that is writing its own textbooks. We're not writing those textbooks, and UNRWA is not. I think UNRWA got a very strong, positive report. I read that report fully. It was positive. It was strong. It talked about the integrity of the architecture, the vision and all of that. I think we need to just say, okay, we accept that it might have been a mistake. Let's move on now without trying to make this into a massive incident with partisan overtones.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, thank you very much.

Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if this is the right time. However, I don't like the friendly subamendment—or the non-friendly friendly subamendment, I guess—from Mr. Morantz. Unfortunately, I do feel like that is insulting to UNRWA. It is unnecessarily questioning their truthfulness, I guess. I do struggle with that.

So I would not be supportive of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

Just before we go to Mr. Genuis, procedurally we have two options. One is to basically vote on Ms. McPherson's subamendment as she introduced it, which is the one that's formally before the committee, or to agree, through unanimous consent, to replace her subamendment with Mr. Morantz's. That does require unanimous consent.

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can we have a “sub-subamendment”? It sounded like Mr. Morantz was trying to amend the subamendment. Is that possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That is possible. He called it a friendly amendment. Procedurally, that gets us onto turf that isn't in the rule book, but a sub-subamendment is possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Morantz may wish to put up his hand and move the subamendment, or perhaps he may not—