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.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
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—
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Chair, while we're waiting, could I raise a question of privilege?
Would that be all right, Michael, while we wait for it to be shared?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I would like to raise this with the committee and ask for your support, Mr. Chair.
Last week's meeting was an in camera meeting. Information from that meeting was leaked to the media. This goes against all the rules that everybody in this room understands very well. The fact that it was leaked is something that harms this committee's ability to do its work. A point of privilege was taken from us. The right for us to speak in camera without leaks was not granted to members of this committee.
I would ask that you, Mr. Chair, investigate how such a leak could have happened. I'd like you to report back to the committee, and I would like the committee to share that information with the House.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Would you like to speak about this question of privilege? I need to clarify this. I completely agree with you. It was regrettable. We all had the opportunity to see—
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
With all due respect, it was more than regrettable. It was illegal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
If you will allow me, I'm not quite sure how you're proposing I investigate this. If you could elaborate on that, I'd be grateful.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
To start with, you could have a conversation with those who were in the room. You could have a conversation with all the different parties and see whether there is any willingness to come clean among members of this committee. You could talk to the journalists who reported on this story. There are a number of things you should undertake.
Certainly, it is important that you make it extraordinarily clear to this committee that it is not just unfortunate. It is against the rules of this committee. It harms all of us—even those who leaked that information—when we can't trust that other parties will not go to the media. I would certainly like you to say something publicly to admonish the behaviour that has led to this leak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
I will take all of that under advisement.
Mr. Chong, you have the floor.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Mr. Chair, I support Madam McPherson's proposal.
What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that you direct the analysts to prepare a draft report for the committee that states which members of the public, including members of the media, had knowledge of our in camera proceedings and that the committee consider that draft report at some future meeting when the analysts have prepared it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you for that.
As the clerk has explained, I agree that this is a question of privilege, that it's a very serious matter and that we should do everything possible to get to the bottom of this. As to how we want to proceed with this, we need a motion. We can't—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, you can't make a motion on a response to a question of privilege; however, we could have a conversation about this. The chair could come up with a suggestion as opposed to doing a motion.
I'd like to have some consideration of this. I would like to respond to the question of privilege, and I'm on a point of order, so I'm in a difficult situation. I think the question of privilege is really well taken, but on the issue of that question of privilege, we have a range of options, including reporting this to the House and having the Speaker deal with it. This is a hugely serious issue.
I'm in total agreement with Ms. McPherson, because we can't do our work if we can't trust each other. There are a variety of ways, and there are precedents on this. Maybe in response to Ms. McPherson, it would be helpful if the chair asked the clerk, not the analyst, to prepare an outline of what our options are—Ms. McPherson's, and I believe all of ours—in the case of a breach of privilege.
Liberal
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
We're currently facing an extremely worrisome situation, and it must not go unaddressed. That said, since last week, I myself have been wondering what to do about it. Ms. McPherson was quite right to raise this question of privilege. I continue to ask myself: Are there any precedents for this type of situation where members of a committee breached or violated in camera proceedings to share information from the discussion with journalists?
Because, generally speaking, journalists refuse to disclose their sources—and one can understand why—what options do we have?
I welcome Mr. Oliphant's proposal to ask the clerk to present us with options so that we can put forward a response, because we can't simply act as if nothing happened. In my opinion, the situation is too serious for us to act like it didn't happen or there's no reason to talk about it. Something serious happened: This committee's in camera proceedings were violated. I think we need to do something, whatever it is, but having said that, I need options to be presented to us because, honestly, I've been asking myself since last week: What options do we have? We need to be informed on what the options are, but we need to do something. That goes without saying.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Absolutely. All of your points are very well taken. We will ask the clerk to prepare a menu of options, if you will, and then we will revisit this issue, if necessary, to make sure that we've accommodated everyone's perspective and we can get to the bottom of this.
Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I would get the clerk's advice on this, however, because I believe that for what happens on a question of privilege there is not a range of options for us. The chair rules on the question of privilege—
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
—based on the advice of the clerk on your options. You present to us the options and your decision, and we take that.
It's not really, I believe, a committee choice to respond to a question of privilege. I think it's yours. I would think it's probably best to say, as the Speaker does in the House, “I will consult the clerk. I will get the best advice, and I will come back to the committee to respond.” That's better than us trying to put forward a motion, but the clerk could help us with that.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of procedure, how this works at the committee level on a question or a matter of privilege is that it can be raised at the earliest opportunity in a meeting. The chair will rule whether or not the chair believes it relates to privilege or not. If the chair rules that it does relate to privilege, the committee has the option to move a motion to report to the House on the breach of privilege in committee. The House can take further steps at that point.
That's one of the options. Otherwise, the committee could discuss the matter and choose not to report the matter to the House. Those are the options: whether to report the matter of privilege to the House or not.