Evidence of meeting #115 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was palestinian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Unless I'm mistaken, Madam Clerk, I believe I heard our chair say that he thought it was a question of privilege. Therefore, if I understand what you've just recommended to us, we can either report to the House what the chair has just said, or discuss it and decide amongst ourselves not to report the matter to the House.
Is that correct?
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your question.
Yes, the committee can report the situation to the House. The committee can pass a motion setting out the facts of what happened, not necessarily including allegations. It can report to the House and ask the House to take action that the committee can determine in the text of the motion.
In that case, it will be up to the House to decide if additional steps are to be taken. Otherwise, the members of the committee can discuss it amongst themselves and decide not to report to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I would like to say, and hopefully we can close this for the time being, that yes, I did rule on it.
Secondly, as you will recall, I did turn to Ms. McPherson and asked what she thought needed to be done, because this was a very serious matter. Mr. Oliphant actually said that we should ask the clerk to provide us with some options. Mr. Oliphant now says, no, that's not the way to go, so if everyone could remember their own remarks....
Those were your specific remarks, Mr. Oliphant. You said to go to the clerk and canvass all of the options that are available. Now you're saying, no, that's not the way to deal with it.
If everyone can just remember that this is a very serious issue. I would much rather report back to the members to ensure that everyone does have full confidence that we've taken it as seriously as we should. That is what I will do before advising the Speaker, but as was pointed out, we will wait for the clerk to set out what all of those options are to the extent possible, and then we'll take it from there.
We will now go back to—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order.
Just to clarify what I said or tried to say. Maybe I misspoke. I believe the chair should get all of the options from the clerk. That is the chair's prerogative. You should then report back to us your understanding of it, because I think it's a good idea to get all of the precedents, all of those things, and then come back to us. It's hard to do it in this meeting, at this time, and the clerk can help you on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.
I'm now being advised by the clerk that the only option.... This is very different from what Ms. McPherson originally had in mind. She was of the opinion that I can get to the bottom of this, that I should contact the journalist, but that is not possible. I'm advised that the only option is for me to inform the Speaker.
Go ahead, Ms. McPherson.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Then I would request that you do so if that's the only option we have on the table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We will draft something and then bring it back for the approval of the members.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Just to make sure—because I'm sure there are several different options—we'll definitely look into this and put it at the top of our priorities for the next meeting.
Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Continuing a debate on the motion in front of the committee with regard to the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, I propose the following amendment. I believe, Mr. Chair, that all members of the committee should now have that amendment.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I move that part (b) be amended by adding the following words “and defend itself”; that part (c) be amended by adding the following words “which is the result of a negotiated agreement between Israelis and Palestinians”; and that part (d) be amended by replacing the numeral “6” with the numeral “4”, and that the following words be struck: “the recognition of the State of Palestine within”.
Mr. Chair, that is my amendment. I'll just briefly speak to it before allowing other members to voice their views on it. I would amend the motion so that the motion adheres to the long-standing position of governments of various stripes and the long-standing position of—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I have a point of order.
I'm sorry, Michael. We have two different written versions of the amendment. I have one that has a change to part (b) here with red words added to it, and I have one without changes to part (b). I have two different written versions, and I really need clarity on how we got two versions and which version we're supposed to be looking at.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
It's the version that I read into the record, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I'm sorry. I was waiting, on my point of order, for the written version because it was going quickly in the verbal version, so now I'm confused.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
We ask that you read it out one more time just so there's no confusion.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I agree, Mr. Chair. It's the version I read into the record, for Mr. Oliphant's clarification, and I will reread the amendment.
I move that part (b) be amended by adding the words “and defend itself”; that part (c) be amended by adding the words “which is the result of a negotiated agreement between Israelis and Palestinians”; and that part (d) be amended by replacing the number “6” with the number “4”, and by striking the words “the recognition of the State of Palestine within”.
Mr. Chair, that is the amendment I move. I'll briefly speak to it.
I'm moving this amendment because it would amend the motion to ensure that the committee adheres in parts (a), (b) and (c) to the long-standing position of the two major parties in the House of Commons, which also happens to be the long-standing position of the Government of Canada through previous Conservative and Liberal governments.
I think it would ensure coherence in our position but also indicate to the Government of Canada a coherent path forward for the events taking place in the Middle East. That coherence rests on one fundamental assumption that I believe is the case: that there can be no lasting and durable peace in the Middle East without a negotiated agreement, a negotiated settlement, between the two parties to this conflict, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that anything unilateral on the part of one party or the other takes us further away from that lasting and durable peace and from putting pressure on both parties to sit down at the table to negotiate, compromise and come to a two-party agreement.
That is the reason, Mr. Chair, for our amendment to the motion. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.
We're now discussing the amendment.
We go next to Mr. Aboultaif.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I was going to speak to the question of privilege over the leak that happened to the media. We received emails from the media. They seemed to know every single detail about what went on in the meeting. That's not acceptable. That's definitely illegal, and I think it's a very serious issue.
As for the rest of the time, Mr. Chong has spoken, and that will be the end of my remarks.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak to the amendment, but since I haven't had a chance to speak to the motion, I want to refer to both of them throughout my conversation. I won't take too long. I think any conversation on this subject will be difficult. There are G7 parliaments and parliaments around the world discussing this conversation. I think we should, as parliamentarians, have a robust conversation about the issues in the Middle East at this time.
I always begin this conversation by talking about the heinous attack that happened on October 7. It was the largest attack on Israel, the Israeli people and, really, the Jewish population of the world by the terrorist organization Hamas. We will be approaching the first anniversary of that very soon. It has to be emblazoned in our minds and our memories as something that continues, as hostages still have not been released and as that war continues.
At the very same time, we are cognizant of the huge civilian casualties that have happened in Gaza as well as, frankly, in the West Bank in recent weeks. The large toll is the more than 40,000 people in Gaza who have lost their lives, including some 17,000 children. We recognize that Canada is one of the leading nations in calling for a ceasefire. We took a little time on that, I will say, as many countries did, because we also recognize Israel's right to defend itself from a terrorist attack.
However, the Prime Minister, as the head of the government, has been very clear that there needs to be a negotiated ceasefire, that hostages need to be returned, that both sides need to lay down their arms and that it should happen immediately. A variety of peace proposals have happened. Canada continues to work with a number of partners on those proposals, but we are extremely concerned about the continued loss of civilian lives.
We do put a responsibility on Hamas as the instigator of this conflict. We also put a responsibility on Israel to follow the rule of law with respect to war. We have also been very clear about that. These are complex, complicated and interwoven issues. The government has been attempting to provide assistance in world fora on this, and we'll continue to do that.
While we are calling for an immediate ceasefire, the laying down of arms by both parties, the release of hostages by Hamas and the delivery of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, we also have in our sights a two-state solution. That is firmly embedded in the government's policy. I fear that it is waning in some people's minds and that the events of October 7 have actually derailed other people's commitment to a two-state solution. Canada remains firmly in favour of a two-state solution and in taking steps to ensure a two-state solution.
If we are to have a two-state solution, Mr. Chair, we need two states. That is very clear. Canada is a friend and ally of the State of Israel. We've been a friend to the Palestinian people. However, our Prime Minister has been very clear that the recognition of the state of Palestine has to be done “at the right time, not necessarily as the last step along the path.” Let me say that again. The Government of Canada is prepared to recognize the state of Palestine “at the right time, not necessarily as the last step along the path.”
The Prime Minister also said:
...we urgently need to build a credible path toward lasting peace. We oppose efforts by the Netanyahu government to reject a two-state solution. At the same time, Hamas, a terrorist group, currently controls areas in Gaza and has not laid down its arms or released its hostages.
That is the reality of the situation.
The reason we will continue to support the motion that was made is that we believe the best place to give government advice on those conditions for the right time for the recognition of the state of Palestine is in this committee. This is a forum where we can bring experts, academics, international NGOs and Canadians from a variety of opinions and backgrounds to find a way to advise the government as parliamentarians as to the conditions and the timing that will bring a lasting peace, a peace with justice.
This is something many of us have been committed to for decades. There is a huge possibility that this can happen in the very near future. There's also a chance it could be completely derailed for generations, so I think it's incumbent upon this committee to very seriously look at this issue to recognize that we're not all of the same opinion on this committee. There are a variety of opinions. There's probably a spectrum. In our House of Commons, we're not all of the same opinion. In the country as a whole, we're not all of the same opinion. What better place than Parliament and, most specifically, this committee, to have that discussion on the recognition of the state of Palestine?
It goes without saying that we hold in our hearts and in our minds the people of Israel who have, for generations, for millennia, faced hatred, anti-Semitism and horrendous loss of life. Israel is their homeland, safe haven and a place that we need to defend and protect. There's no question about it, but people take up space. What I learned on my very first trip to Israel was that people take up space. We have two peoples living on a small piece of land, and we need to find a way for the two of them to not just coexist but thrive together. The safety and security of Israel is dependent upon the safety and security of Palestine, and they go hand in hand. That means we believe in the two-state solution. That means you need two states to do it.
The question for this committee, which we believe is well expressed in the motion, is to let us study that without presupposing. We read the motion differently, I understand that. I've heard the opposition. We read the motion differently. We are not presupposing the timing of the recognition, but we are presupposing the recognition, because we have presupposed the two-state solution. That's how we're reading it. We are committed to that. We want to work with this committee.
It will be an uncomfortable set of hearings. We'll have people bringing their pain, bringing their differences and bringing their anxieties, their worries and their fears on both sides or maybe more than two sides. That is what we need to do.
I want to close by saying that we are on the verge of this becoming a regional conflict, so we have to find a way to de-escalate. I speak particularly about the Israel-Lebanon border, south Lebanon and attacks that are taking place both in Israel from Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, and in Lebanon, which have killed civilians. That has to stop.
We also recognize the role of Iran in this. We recognize that the Arab states are trying to find a way to broker peace. The United States is trying to do that. Canada is playing its role. The Palestinian Authority is attempting to play its role. We will continue to do that.
I will close by saying that this is the place for us to have this discussion, and it shouldn't wait. That's why we will be supporting the motion and continuing to defend it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
