Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2020

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, you said it right. Rob Oliphant was part of your committee and did amazing work, as did you, Ms. Sahota. You were very much engaged in helping the people in your riding.

Why did we have so many people? I think India was one of the places where a lot of people were vacationing and ended up stranded through no fault of their own. I think we repatriated north of...I don't have the exact number, but it was certainly tens of thousands of people from India. Overall, I think this operation went pretty well. We brought these people back home safely.

This is also thanks to all members of Parliament. We did our part, and the members of Parliament did their part, and Canadians did bear with us at that time of difficulty. We certainly learned from that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Minister, thank you very much.

I'll have to cut you off there and go to the next round, but we can certainly circle back in a subsequent round.

We are now going into round three, and five minutes go to Mr. Morantz, please.

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

Minister, I want to talk to you about the vote on the resolution in the UN last week. I appreciate the attempt at what I would call damage control with respect to the conversation between you and Ms. Dabrusin earlier, but with the greatest respect, it's not the part of the resolution that says that Canada supports a two-state solution that the Jewish community is concerned about. It's the rest of the resolution that is problematic.

In fact, your own ambassador, Mr. Rae, said there were parts of the resolution that he simply did not agree with. You own former colleague Mr. Levitt said, “By supporting this resolution, Canada is providing ammunition to those who seek to delegitimize and demonize the State of Israel, which ultimately sets back the prospects for peace in the region”.

The aspects of the resolution that are problematic, Minister, have to do with three things.

First, it says that the security wall, which was put up to protect all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, from terrorist attacks, severely impedes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Your government voted for that.

It says that the so-called occupied territory should be contiguous—in other words, the West Bank and Gaza should be contiguous. If that were to come true, Israel simply would no longer exist. Your government voted for that.

It also refers to Israel as an occupier, which has never been the official position of the Government of Canada.

If your goal was simply to reaffirm Canada's commitment to a two-state solution, wouldn't it have been simpler to simply vote against this ill-conceived resolution, and then put out a press release saying why you voted against it, and that you support, as always, a two-state solution?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You know, I have enormous respect for you and your questions. You did ask me that question in the House on one or two occasions.

I think our explanation of the vote speaks for itself, and you are well familiar with that. I had a chance to speak to Jewish communities across Canada to explain our position. I also spoke to my counterpart in Israel, with whom we have an extraordinary collaboration.

The Jewish community in Canada and around the world understands that Canada is a steadfast ally of Israel. You know well that we vote against the vast majority of these yearly Israel-related resolutions. We explained the reason why we voted in that manner, and we said that we reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I will continue to engage with the community, with whom I have many friends, probably as many as you, and for whom I have enormous respect.

We explained that. Ambassador Rae did that. The Prime Minister did that. It's not inconsistent with being a steadfast ally of Israel. If you look at our voting records, you will realize that our government has a position on votes. If you look at previous governments, it demonstrates very clearly that we are a steadfast ally, which is what our friends in Israel expect from Canada.

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

I don't disagree that Canada is and always should be an ally, but, to respectfully disagree with Ms. Dabrusin, the vast majority of Canadian Jews would not appreciate the fact that their government is voting for a resolution that refers to Israel, in the preamble, the way I described earlier. They simply would not.

In fact, although you say you have consulted and talked to many members of the Jewish community, I don't know if you have consulted with other people outside of the Jewish community who also feel very strongly about Canada's support for Israel. That might be a good thing to do as well. The reality is that three major organizations—B'nai B'rith, Simon Wiesenthal Center, CIJA—pleaded with you not to vote for this resolution, for the reasons they very clearly and concisely described.

If it is the position of the Government of Canada that there should be two states living peacefully side by side, that is a point you can make without voting for a resolution that calls Israel an occupier, supports contiguity of Palestinian regions, and calls the wall an impediment to self-determination. You didn't have to do that to make your point.

That's not a question. It's just a statement. It's really to set the record straight on how Canadian Jews and millions of other Canadians who support Israel feel about what your government did this year and last year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Morantz, thank you very much. We'll have to leave it there.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Will I have a chance to answer, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

There may well be an opportunity in a subsequent round, Minister.

We will now go to Dr. Fry for five minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It's good to see you.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

It's good to see you too.

I want to go back to something Mr. Diotte brought up, about journalism and journalists.

Since 1992, 1,350 journalists have been murdered around the world; 40% of those have come from the Caribbean-Latin American region. We also know that in the OSCE there are many journalists right now who are being tortured, being put into prison, having their human rights denied. These are all journalists who are being critical of governments. We see Turkey in the OSCE; we see Belarus in the OSCE; we see some of the central Asian countries in the OSCE doing this.

It is easy for us to decry it internationally, but that doesn't solve the problem. Are there tools that the international community can use to sanction or to do whatever they can about countries that are actually committing murder?

It's not just about democracy now. It's about human rights. It's the right of people to speak out and have opinions. It's a whole issue of the fact that people are afraid to do this now. I think very recently we saw in Mexico that a journalist, Ms. Ferral, had been killed.

What are the tools that are available to us that can actually be effective? Really, just saying we don't like it and everyone wagging their finger has made absolutely no impression whatsoever. Are there tools?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, Ms. Fry, I want to commend your work at the OSCE. Before I went there—I just want to state for the record—you were extremely helpful.

With regard to your point, it's true that we see democracy values, processes and institutions, freedom of speech and freedom of expression [Technical difficulty—Editor] a number of authoritarian regimes, which have used COVID-19 as an excuse.

Let me give the example of Belarus. At the media freedom conference, there's a prize that was created by Canada and the United Kingdom to recognize journalists who have done exceptional work. This year, the prize has been awarded to the Belarusian Association of Journalists.

Well, that's one way. I think that giving them a voice so that the international community, with the high-level panel.... I spoke to Amal Clooney and with Lord Neuberger—and we have our own Irwin Cotler on the high-level panel—to see how we can best protect journalists. He talked about enhancing consular assistance to journalists. There are a number of streams.

I spoke at the International Bar Association, as well, to raise awareness of the plight that is being felt now by journalists. With the rise of authoritarianism that we see in many places of the world, we see freedoms going down. Those who are suffering on the front line have been journalists, in too many parts of the world.

We're always looking at the tool box. I think what I like about the high-level legal panel in particular is that they are really looking at legal tools that states could draw upon to make sure that we can better protect journalists around the world.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister. That at least tells us that we're actually working on some effective ways of dealing with this issue. I just didn't know if sanctions and things like.... Obviously, you cannot apply Magnitsky because nobody is taking money and putting it into foreign accounts, especially into Canada.

The most important thing I want to talk about is that it's not just journalists. We are now seeing that parliamentarians are being murdered in many countries. These are so-called democratic countries—and I use the word guardedly—that belong to democratic institutions that are part of...people we deal with on an everyday basis.

Again, I wonder what we can do to protect parliamentarians as well.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I know that you did a lot of work on that, and I want to, first of all, commend you again for the work that you're doing on that with other parliamentarians around the world.

It is of much concern. When we see an attack on freedom and democracy, it has many concerning angles. We've seen it in many countries where.... I'll take the case of Belarus, where you see that we have not recognized the presidential election as being free and fair. We've seen a number of issues come up in Latin America. I think that, as parliamentarians, we should all be very concerned about what's going on.

Just an idea about studies.... A study about the tools you can recommend to the international community and Canada can be part of the solution in addressing the situation that you're talking about with respect to different parliaments around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

The floor now belongs to Mr. Bergeron once again for two and a half minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I had a series of questions, but Mr. Morantz's comments really resonated with me.

I think bad faith must really be involved for someone to claim that Canada took an anti-Israel position.

All of us here are used to having bills presented to us. There used to even be mammoth bills with a number of provisions, some of which we may agree with and others we may not. That even happened under Stephen Harper's Conservative government. In the end, a decision had to be made that could be interpreted by some as the position on all the elements of the bill.

We are also used to certain Conservative Party motions that include the kitchen sink. They contain many things, some of which we agree with, and some of which we disagree with, but, at the end of the day, we have to vote either for or against the motion.

I see that Canada has voted in favour of the two-state solution, which is the solution that will help achieve a sustainable peace to benefit both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Of course, there may be disagreements over fact that the motion was referring to a contiguous territory. In an ideal world, we may wish for the two territories to be contiguous, but the geographic reality makes this not the case.

I think that Ambassador Rae was very clear when he appeared before this committee. He told us that, when he expressed reservations about the resolution, he did so on behalf of the Government of Canada. The reservations were not expressed only by Bob Rae as a citizen or even as an ambassador, but by the Government of Canada.

As for the fact that Israel is occupying that land illegally, that is indeed the case. The international community has been refusing to recognize that since 1967. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Israel is not an occupying state, but Israel has been occupying land that does not belong to it. The international community does not recognize this.

The United States went a bit outside the mainstream by moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but the entire international community is keeping its diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv to indicate that the Jerusalem question has not yet been resolved. As long as no two-state solution has been reached, no sustainable peace that will benefit all parties can be established.

Minister, on the contrary, I want to express my support for your decision because I don't think that decision was against Israel. There were elements in the resolution that we may disagree with, and I think you have been clear on those elements. However, I think it was, on the contrary, a responsible position in favour of peace, both for Palestine and Israel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron. That was quite a comment.

Minister, I'm sorry. Two and a half minutes go by quickly. I invite you to come back to this issue during the next questions.

I would like to turn the floor over to Mr. Harris now, please, for two and a half minutes only.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to follow up on my colleague Mr. Bergeron's comments. Since this issue has been discussed here broadly, there are many Canadians, including Jewish Canadians, who believe in human rights, who seek sustainable peace and justice in the Middle East and who are heartened by the support of Canada on the self-determination resolution.

The preamble to many resolutions is not something that we always agree upon. The resolution itself supporting that self-determination is an important step for Canada to take on the international stage. I would like to think this is a step towards Canada being more engaged in trying to get closer to that two-state solution. It's not enough to say we support it. We've been saying that for many years, as has been pointed out by Ms. Dabrusin.

What is Canada actually prepared to do? What steps is Canada prepared to take to advance the cause of the two-state solution? We've asked already about support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees to help them sustain their lives. We need self-determination. We need to have basics first. Can we do that, and can we do other things?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Harris.

This is something that I've been discussing with my Israeli counterpart. He asked Canada to play a positive role, and obviously we are willing to play a meaningful role. I spoke to him, and we had a conversation not too long ago, following the Abraham Accords. You may know that on the night of the Abraham Accords, I think I was the first foreign minister to whom he spoke that night when they signed with the United Arab Emirates.

We already have a free trade agreement with Israel, which we have enhanced. We're looking at ways in which.... I have been speaking with the Palestinian Authority as well. As you know, one of the good things over the last nine months is that I have been able to speak...and I spoke with the Secretary-General of the Arab League also on a number of occasions, and to my Israeli colleagues, who have been asking me in particular to play a positive role. We always answer yes, and conveying sometimes.... Canada being able to speak to both sides, there are things that we are seeing, and I think we can play a positive role and we'll continue to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We're now back to a five-minute round, and it goes to Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'd like to ask you a few questions about Nagorno-Karabakh. In particular, I'd like to ask you about the conversation the Prime Minister had with President Erdogan on April 23.

There was a report that indicated the Prime Minister committed to addressing Turkish concerns about the suspension of Canadian arms exports. Is that report accurate?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm not privy to the discussion between the Prime Minister and Minister Erdogan, but I think there is a readout and the readout speaks for itself.

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

Okay.

You approved these arms exports to Turkey. Why?