Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Colleagues, this is an important discussion, and there isn't a more fitting place to have this discussion than at this committee.
As I have said before, there seems to be a unanimous consensus that we support a two-state solution. Implicit in that definition is a recognition for a Palestinian state, yet the idea and the dream of a Palestinian state in today's moment of time seems to be slipping away. We are hearing from radical voices on both sides that are moving away from a two-state solution. They are publicly speaking out against a two-state solution, and I think that's dangerous.
What is also risky is the notion that we are in an environment where there's a zero-sum outcome. If one talks about Israel's right to exist, some people will see it as an erasure of a Palestinian state, or if somebody's talking about the recognition of a Palestinian state, it's a detriment to the State of Israel. We need to find ourselves out of that discussion. We need peace-loving and rational voices to put an end to this zero-sum outcome. In fact, we should talk about how, if we move in that direction, everyone will be in a better position to live in peace, dignity and prosperity.
I encourage anybody who supports a two-state solution to support this motion. This motion does not presuppose the outcome of what a Palestinian state would look like. It does not reward extremists, as some of my colleagues have been saying. Extremists do not support the wording of this motion. We need rational people to stand by their words when they say they support a two-state solution and engage in this study.
As my colleague said, we have different ideas of what that means. That's fine. Again, that's what I expect from an intelligent debate. That's what I expect from a rational conversation. However, to claim that one supports a two-state solution but that the recognition of a two-state solution undermines peace, that is contradictory and does not make any sense to me.
By the way, almost all states that have been recognized in modern history have not been asked to go through the same conditions that we're asking the Palestinian state to go through. This motion marginalizes voices like Hamas, because Hamas is not asking for a two-state solution. This marginalizes extremist voices within Israel, because those extremist voices are not asking for a two-state solution.
This motion offers hope to peace-loving people—Palestinian people, Israeli people, Canadians—who want to see leadership by their representatives saying they're going to do everything they can to advance the cause of peace and to advance a real, tangible, viable two-state solution. We should hear from witnesses who can provide us with input, and at the end of it, we'll provide advice to government.
I'm sorry. I think people who oppose this motion must ask themselves whether they are against a two-state solution. This motion talks about a two-state solution. That is the centrepiece of this motion. We need to ensure that Canada has a voice to advance that against the extremist voices who are pushing us away from peace and a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in peace and harmony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.