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
Liberal
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
If this doesn't become a friendly amendment, I will move that the motion be formally amended so that the wording is “no more than four meetings”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go back to the original motion as amended.
Mr. Zuberi.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very happy and pleased that we are having this discussion in the open. This is an important discussion around something that has been on Canadians' minds for the last several months, if not years.
This foreign affairs committee is tasked with studying matters that relate to what is happening on the global stage. Right now, what's happening in the Middle East is top of mind for not only Canadians but people across the globe. As so many of my colleagues from all parties have mentioned, we mourn the loss of all life that has happened since October, regardless of one's faith or ethnicity or one's background within the Middle East. We mourn the loss of life of every innocent person. Each and every life that has been taken unjustly and wrongly in this conflict is a tragedy, and that's why this committee must be seized by this issue.
I think of Vivian Silver, who dedicated her life to building peace for everyone in the region. She was Israeli, but she was tragically killed on October 7. She dedicated her life to building a better future for everyone within the region, and I think that is the spirit with which we need to approach this issue, this study, the topic of and the conversation about the Middle East.
In my riding, I speak with people who are connected to the region in multiple ways, but one thing that always rings true is that everyone is feeling the same emotions, including sadness, guilt and pain. There are so many different emotions people are feeling. The thing is that everyone is feeling the same thing, and it's important for us to recognize that. It allows us to also firmly remind ourselves that, while we're feeling this pain and seeing this tragedy and nightmare unfold, each and every one of us at this committee has to be committed to peace. We have to be committed to building a better future for everyone within the region, regardless of faith or ethnicity. That should be top of mind as we enter this conversation and this vote, top of mind as we hopefully study this in the future, and top of mind in each and every interaction we have with Canadians, with each other and with the subject matter.
It's important to remind ourselves about that, because oftentimes we get caught up in our silos, and our silos are not going to help us build true peace in the Middle East. Our silos will maintain the status quo.
The study in this motion that we have in front of us now talks about the Middle East globally. It is an opportunity for us at this committee to look at how we can build true peace in the region. It is a motion that recognizes Canada's position—the common position we have across this table, no matter what side we're sitting on—of a two-state solution. It is a solution that, when realized, will be in everyone's best interest, regardless of which border one lives across and regardless of what ethnicity somebody happened to be born with or had the good fortune to be born with. This is, I would suggest, a way in which we could approach this.
I plead with you, committee members. While some of you may not feel this motion is perfect, I ask you to support it and also to raise the points that you want to raise and challenge the elements you want to challenge. That's the work we do in Parliament and those are the debates we have in Parliament. This is about the job that we do and what we signed up for when we put up posters and when we were elected. Our job is to debate, to discuss and to make things manifest.
We will not all see the same issue in the same way, eye to eye. However, with respect for each other and while we might differ, this endeavour, this process, will allow us to come to something better, something better than each and every one of us around the table could come up with.
I'll conclude with the reminder that we approach this with this idea in mind: We're here to bring true peace to the region in our small interactions, be it in our local ridings, in Ottawa at the capital, in international fora or wherever we are. That's what we, as elected officials, as leaders, as teachers, should be doing.
I look forward to our debating and discussing this, questioning the witnesses who will come forth and helping move the world in a better direction.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for indulging me.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
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.
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Many people are obviously suffering in the Middle East right now, and it's also being felt in our communities. We have a duty to be the voice of our communities and the people we represent. We are the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, and our role is to move issues forward to shed light on the situation and perhaps pave the way for sustainable peace solutions.
Until we understand that peace in the Middle East will require a solution that brings together two states living side by side with mutual respect and respect for human rights, there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East. If there is no lasting peace in the Middle East, there will be no lasting peace in the world. That's why it's important. Canada is not in a bubble. Obviously, we see how the suffering of the Israelis and the Palestinians is affecting us here every day.
The committee not only has an opportunity to promote dialogue and put forward solutions to achieve lasting peace; it also has a responsibility. We need to ask ourselves how Canada can lead the way and offer solutions. In fact, the committee will be meeting and welcoming witnesses to try to see how Canada can be an ally to the international community in promoting sustainable peace in the Middle East and around the world. Canada has played a key role in that respect in several global conflicts. I don't see why it would be any different today. We have a credible voice, a voice that is central to our identity as Canadians, and we need to promote peace in the world.
This is not only a great opportunity to adopt the motion introduced by my colleague Mr. Alghabra. It's also a committee responsibility. I look forward to seeing if there's a light at the end of this long, dark tunnel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to reiterate that we are strongly opposed to this motion. Conservatives believe that the only way to a durable and lasting peace is the creation of a two-state solution that is the result of negotiations and the arrival at an agreement between the two parties involved in this long-standing conflict. The risk with the committee adopting the motion in front of us is that it risks encouraging the Government of Canada to do the same and to recognize the Palestinian state sooner rather than later.
This would hurt Canada's interests, make no mistake about it. Canada is part of the G7. We are a founding member of NATO. We are struggling in these memberships. It's clear, over the last several years, that we are not taken seriously in G7 capitals and not taken seriously at NATO headquarters in Brussels. We have very few hard assets in the region. We once had many assets in the region. We once were able to deploy missions to the Suez, major missions to Cyprus and major missions to the Golan Heights. We no longer have the capacity to do that. We are stretched beyond thin with our current deployments. As a result, we have very few hard assets in the region.
Other democracies are doing the heavy lifting in the region, whether it's patrolling the gulf, whether it's patrolling other parts of the Middle East or whether it's in the Mediterranean. Other democracies have hard assets in the region and are doing the heavy lifting. They are not making these declaratory recognitions of Palestinian statehood. By this committee encouraging the government to do the same, to recognize, sooner rather than later, Palestinian statehood, we risk damaging Canada's interests and further diminishing our presence on the world stage.
For that reason, we cannot support it. Canada needs to be hard-nosed about its interests. Too often we are not. As a result, Canadians have suffered. We strongly oppose this motion. We think it's illogical. It's also in a context where it would reward violence and illegal activity on behalf of non-state actors to achieve statehood. We think that sends the wrong message about the rules-based international order.
For those reasons and others that I've outlined during this committee meeting, Mr. Chair, I will be voting against the motion.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I heard some very eloquent speeches this morning—I refer to Mr. McPherson, Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Alghabra. We talked a lot about history around this table as we debated the motion.
I recall that, historically, and I know that, when I was a minister in this government—and for those of you around the table who say you are Conservatives, I recall Prime Minister Brian Mulroney—Canada was a player on the world stage, and it was not because we had a lot of arms and massive armies. It was not because of anything other than the power of our convictions, our sense of fairness and our ability to find answers to complex solutions and to go about making that happen. When Brian Mulroney helped to create the end of apartheid in South Africa, he went against the G7 nations, the United Kingdom and so many people. However, he spoke out because Canada, whether it be under a Progressive Conservative government or a Liberal government, had always been recognized for its ability to speak truth, to find solutions and to get to peace.
This is our seminal role in the world: to be a peaceful and peace-loving nation, a nation that seeks to find peace. You cannot find peace unless you have a two-state solution. There can be no permanent path to peace other than that. Everyone around the table agrees with this.
I want to talk about an old aphorism: Evil exists where good people do nothing. I substitute the word “people” for “men” in this gender-sensitive age. One has to move forward. We heard a lot of talk about democracies here. Canada is a democracy—a true democracy. A democracy includes the voice of civil society. If we're going to ask for a study to occur, we are engaging civil society in Canada by asking their opinions and by debating an issue that very few people even understand—the historical background for it, the problems and the course that it can lead to—so I think this is a very democratic thing to do. This is what standing committees are supposed to do.
People say, “If the Government of Canada wants to do it, they can go ahead and do it.” I think that is very true, but at the same time, while this is happening and everyone is sitting on their hands, more and more civilians are being killed, children especially, in Gaza. We stand up and scream when this happens in Russia, and we stand up and shout loudly about what's going on with Ukrainians, but we have to believe that all human beings are equal. All human beings, all children, all families can hurt in the same way, so we either believe in the rule of law that says.... There's a law around conflicts with regard to civilians: We either agree with that or we don't. We do agree, and we've always agreed and stood for that.
This is saying that we're really trying to find out how to get to that two-state solution that would lead to lasting peace. We're doing it in the face of the fact that.... We just heard Norway last night—and I must tell you, I watched the Prime Minister of Norway speak, and I was moved. He talked about principles, about fairness, about standing up and speaking out. This is what Canada is renowned for—not for having the largest number of forces in NATO nor the biggest number of armies but to always.... I remember when North Korea was having its problems. Who did they send? They sent a Canadian diplomat. We've seen it in Northern Ireland. Who did they send? They sent a Canadian general. We've always been out there whenever we're looking for solutions to conflict. This is our history, our legacy and who we are as Canadians.
We are now going to the people and to civil society writ large, whether they be academics, experts or whoever, and saying, “Look, we all know this is what we say we agree with. Everyone around this table agrees with a two-state solution, so now we want to know”.... However, there's a problem getting there. Mr. Netanyahu has said that he does not and will never recognize the state of Palestine.
Where do you go from there? There's going to be no negotiated settlement. If we have to push that envelope—like Mr. Mulroney did in South Africa when he pushed the South African government of the day to decide what was going to happen with apartheid and to back down—we are going to be following the Canadian tradition by doing that. I think this is an important motion.
As Mr. Alghabra said, nobody knows what the outcome will be. We may hear from a lot of experts in civil society that we should not have a two-state solution. We could hear from them that we should wait and let things take their course.
Do all of you remember that, in the Second World War, Britain sat by and let Germany say that it only wanted to march into southern Czechoslovakia? Of course, then World War II happened. We don't want a regional war right now. There's a risk of a regional war in the Middle East.
This summer.... I haven't spoken. I'm just speaking this bit right now, so don't everyone stare at me as if you want me to shut up because I'm not going to. I have the floor.
This summer, I was in Bucharest for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. At that meeting, some of the 57 states represented were Mediterranean states. The Mediterranean states were very concerned about the fact that Mr. Netanyahu had said that he was going to go into Lebanon, which is in itself a sovereign nation. They were concerned that this would be the start of a regional war of which they would be a part. They would be hurt and they would be harmed.
They spoke out very clearly about this issue of a two-state solution. These were parliamentarians from 57 nations. They spoke out about ending what is going on. They said that Putin is a monster, doing things like taking children, kidnapping them, killing civilians and raping children, and that they were not talking about other countries and they don't apply that same principle to other countries.
I'm not blaming anybody. Israel has a right to defend itself. It was absolutely awful what happened in October, but the Israeli people want an end to this. They're walking in the streets by the tens and hundreds of thousands, saying that they want this to end. They want a ceasefire. They want the hostages back, and they want peace.
How many generations of Israeli and Palestinian children have grown up not knowing what it is to have hope for what we are talking about here? It's a house, a safe place to call home, health care and the ability to go to school and realize their potential. None of these people, over the course of generations, have ever had that hope. They have always had the dream, which is now no longer a dream. It is a lack of hope. It has died. There's no dream there.
This is what we stand for as Canadians. Let us engage our civil society in this study. Let us listen to what they have to tell us. Let us go ahead and make the decisions, even if it means we have to tell our government that this is what we want to do, that we heard from civil society and this is what the people want you to do. Let us do that.
What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of what the people will tell us? Are we afraid of our people—our civilians?
Thank you very much.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will just say this very quickly because I have spoken to this at length. Again, this could be done today by the minister. We don't need a study, but I would ask that this committee undertake this study as soon as possible and that we treat it with the urgency it deserves.
I think we all understand that there is an election coming soon, potentially. The Conservatives have made it very clear that they will never take this step. I think it's important that we do this as urgently as possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
If memory serves, I do think I saw the term “immediately”. That was part of the motion.
There's no longer anyone on the speakers list, so we'll put this to a vote now.
Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I have just a quick intervention.
The wording in the motion implies that you will be reporting this to the House at some point, because it asks for a government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.
I want to ensure that we will have the opportunity, afforded by this committee, to append a dissenting report to that report to the House, indicating our position that Canada and this committee should adhere to the long-standing position of the Government of Canada prior to this current government and the long-standing position of the two major parties in the House of Commons.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Yes, Mr. Chong, that is standard procedure. I don't think anyone has the intention of departing from that procedure.
Before we vote on this, there was the amendment by Mr. Bergeron.
Could I just ask the clerk to clarify what that was, before we vote on the motion?
The Clerk
I just wanted to clarify whether or not the amendment proposed by Mr. Bergeron was adopted. That was not quite clear.
Liberal