Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the motion in front of the committee is not one that I can support. In part (c), the motion reads that the committee “Supports the recognition of a viable and independent state of Palestine”. That part of the motion has no conditions on the recognition of a viable and independent state of Palestine and implies that the committee supports the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state.
This is a radical position in our view. It changes Canada's long-standing position that the recognition of a Palestinian state can only be achieved at the end of a negotiated agreement between the two parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. This has been a long-standing position of the Government of Canada for many years. It has been the long-standing position of previous Liberal and Conservative governments. This motion would be a departure from that long-standing and cogent position.
The motion, as it's currently worded, would also isolate us from our closest and traditional allies. We would be isolated in the G7, which is arguably our most important multilateral membership. We would become the first national legislature of a G7 member to encourage the government to immediately and forthwith recognize a state of Palestine, or, at the very least, recognize a state of Palestine before a negotiated agreement had been concluded between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This would isolate us from the rest of the members in the G7.
It also would isolate us from our traditional and closest allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada would become the first major and founding member of NATO to take a position in its national legislature—and, arguably, it would encourage the Government of Canada to do the same—to recognize a state of Palestine before the two parties in this long-standing conflict had come to a negotiated settlement.
I want to make the argument why Canada, across previous Liberal and Conservative governments and with our closest allies within the G7 and NATO, has held to this position for many years.
The reason for this long-standing position is that people have rightfully concluded that the only way a long-standing and durable peace can be achieved is through a negotiated settlement between the two parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Anything unilateral, on the part of one party or the other, is inherently the opposite of a negotiated settlement between the two parties. That is the reason for this long-standing position of the Parliament of Canada, of this committee in its majority, of the Government of Canada and of our closest and traditional allies. That is the logic of why we have adhered to that position for so many years.
Since the events of October 7 last year, it seems farther away than ever that we could achieve a negotiated settlement. Nevertheless, we must keep that as our objective. To veer from that path, in my view, in the context of what's happened since October 7 of last year, would only award violence and authoritarianism as a path to achieving statehood.
I believe that what is going on in the Middle East is similar to what is going on in eastern Europe, similar to what is going on in the South China Sea and similar to what is going on in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa. These are clashes between democracies, however flawed, like Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, and authoritarian states like the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In that clash, there is no question on which side of the line Canada should stand. Out of some 190 member states of the United Nations, there are only two or three dozen democracies. The argument that 140 member states of the UN have already recognized a state of Palestine is not a cogent one, because the vast majority of those member states are not in any way, shape or form democratic states that believe in the trinity of rule of law, democratic institutions, and human rights and freedoms.
I would add this, Mr. Chair: The democracies that have recognized the state of Palestine are not long-standing democracies. Many of them were not on our side when blood was shed during much of the 20th century in defence of democracy and during the Second World War from 1939 to 1945. Forty thousand Canadians gave their lives in defence of democratic ideals, and many tens of thousands more were brutally wounded, either physically or mentally. The democracies that participated in that fight from 1939 to 1945—Canada included—fought for those democratic ideals. In the aftermath, they created the rules-based international order that has ensured peace and security relative to the previous centuries for the last almost 80 years. We must stand with our fellow democracies that fought this fight. That's why we need to adhere to this long-standing position. Canada is a long-standing western liberal democracy.
Mr. Chair, what I would like to do now is present an amendment to the motion. I believe the clerk has copies. I would like to read it into the record. We intend to speak about the amendment, and I hope members of the committee will support it.
Mr. Chair, I move that the motion be amended by adding to part (b) the following—