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.
Liberal
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
We will be supporting the motion as it was presented, which then is tacitly that we don't want to entertain the amendment, because we will be getting into issues that we think should be debated in the study.
There are issues that are there around the negotiated settlement and all of those things. Of course, we believe in Israel and its statehood, so we're not going to go there. We believe that the motion can stand to get us into the study and put us into a difficult study.
I'm not saying that it's going to be easy. We'll disagree. We'll have disagreements on our own side. You'll have disagreements on other sides. I believe that, but the world needs the Canadian Parliament to advise the Canadian government on the timing and conditions that we think will be best suited for lasting and just peace.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much.
Can I propose that we suspend for a couple of minutes to allow everyone to read this amendment and to have any chats that they want to have?
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are so many things I want to mention.
To start with, I just want to say that I think, as the foreign affairs committee of the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, that it is very important that we acknowledge what happened in Lebanon yesterday. It was the most deadly day for the Lebanese people since 2006. Over 1,000 people were injured. Many civilians, including multiple children, lost their lives yesterday. I have heard from Lebanese Canadians from coast to coast who are heartbroken, who are afraid and who are terrified for their loved ones and their family members, and I want to acknowledge that the fear is real.
I also agree with my colleagues. What happened on October 7 was horrific. I am a mother. My children are the same age as those children who went to a music festival. That's something that everyone should have the opportunity to do, and the terrorist attack that took place on October 7 is appalling. I have been very clear from the very beginning how horrific that was, how we grieve with all of those who lost a loved one and how we continue to grieve for those who are waiting for their loved ones to come home.
I have to tell you that, right now, what is being put forward is unsupportable. We listen to the government say that, when the time is right, we will recognize Palestine. I'm here to tell you the time is right. The time has been right for a very long time. We have seen, for the last 11 months, the deaths of children, the targeting of civilians, the breaking of international and humanitarian laws, the attacks on media and the attacks on humanitarian workers. It's unconscionable that there is a person in our Parliament who isn't saying, right now, that this is the time; this is the right time. What has happened over the last 11 months has not made it one iota safer for anyone in Palestine or in Israel. It's not one iota safer. It has made it more dangerous, more difficult and more of a struggle for all of the people living in the region.
Mr. Chong talked about the fact that we shouldn't acknowledge the state of Palestine because the G7 has not done that. I would like to point out that Canada used to have bravery. We used to have the bravery to stand aside from whatever position the United States was taking. I think about Brian Mulroney on South Africa. I think about other times when we were the architects of the international justice system, the International Criminal Court, and now, the government's not sure they're going to support them. Come on.
I'm going to support this motion as it was written by the Liberals, not because I think it is a great motion. I'm going to support it because I think people in this room need to hear from Palestinians, and I think there are people in this room who have never listened to the voices of Palestinians. I will support this motion, but be very clear that not a single one of these things requires a study. The minister could do this today. The minister could sanction Netanyahu, Ben Gvir and Smotrich today. The minister could stop arms loopholes going through the United States today, and the minister could recognize the state of Palestine today.
We do not need a study. We do not need to be doing this work. This could happen today.
Thank you.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you can see, this is a heated debate and it will certainly raise differences of opinion, but we need to have this debate.
As the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, we should have addressed what's currently happening in the Middle East several months ago. We chose not to, other than briefings from Global Affairs Canada staff. Was that a headlong rush to steer clear of uncomfortable discussions? Be that as it may, as the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, turning a blind eye to what was going on in the Middle East certainly wasn't the responsible thing to do, From the moment Hamas savagely attacked Israel to Israel's response in Gaza, and now in Lebanon, an independent country that's being attacked by a neighbour, the response has violated international law.
Item by item, I'm going to repeat the points raised in the amended motion proposed by Mr. Chong and say that I'm going to have to vote against it. It's not because I don't think there's anything worthwhile in this motion, but because what it proposes overall seems unacceptable to me. For example, point b. talks about supporting Israel's right to defend itself. Within minutes of the savage Hamas attack in Israel, we denounced the attack and recognized Israel's right to defend itself. Of course, like most members of the international community, we added that it had to be done in adherence with international humanitarian law and so on, and yet so far Israel has shown no respect for international humanitarian law in the way it has defended itself against Hamas. So Israel's right to defend itself is not an issue. We recognized that right from the get-go. We could add what we added at the time, that is to say in adherence with international humanitarian law. We could also add that we recognize the right to defend oneself against aggression and resist oppression and occupation.
Mr. Chong invoked the fact that, during the Second World War, apparently, the countries that supported recognizing the Palestinian state were not on the same side as Canada. I find that startling because, although we can say that Spain wasn't on Canada's side, how can we say the same thing about Norway, which was occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War? How could we say such a thing? Slovenia was occupied by Germany during the Second World War. How could we say Slovenia wasn't on our side? During the Second World War, Canada recognized the right to defend oneself against aggression and resist oppression and occupation. Why has Canada remained silent for so many years about the aggression, occupation and oppression Palestinians have been experiencing since 1967? It's an illegal occupation. We could have said that in the motion. The settlements in the occupied territory are illegal. We could have said that in the motion. We chose not to mention those illegalities.
Now, point c. talks about recognizing the Palestinian state following negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The United Nations did not want there to be just one state in the former British protectorate of Palestine, but two. Today, there is only one. Several decades later, there is still only one of the two states the international community wants. The other is recognized by much of the international community, but many industrialized nations still refuse to recognize the Palestinian state.
Most countries that used to be called third world countries or developing nations, whatever you want to call them, recognize the state of Palestine. There are more and more industrialized nations doing it or looking at doing it. Spain did it recently, as did Norway and even Ireland. I hope Mr. Chong is not suggesting that Ireland was on the other side during World War II. Slovenia has done it, and Belgium is considering it. What is Canada waiting for?
As Ms. McPherson said, in the past, Canada was bold and brave. Canada stood alone at the front in its fight against apartheid in South Africa. A Conservative government did that. Should we be any less bold and brave today because that's always been the policy? Not recognizing the Palestinian state was a bad policy, because from the outset, the international community always wanted the Palestinian state to be recognized.
I hear the argument that, if we were to recognize the Palestinian state, we would be saying we believe in Hamas and the absolutely brutal acts perpetrated on October 7. Yes, they were brutal acts, but we're quick to forget that the State of Israel itself was born of terrorist acts against Great Britain. We may want to forget the fact that Jewish organizations in Palestine, not the population itself, carried out terrorist acts against Great Britain so that the State of Israel would be created.
Don't get me wrong: I make no apologies for terrorism, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think that these are despicable, unspeakable and unacceptable acts, that any violence against civilians is completely unacceptable and intolerable. This applies to terrorist organizations, but it applies to countries that deliberately engage in vicious attacks on civilian populations as well. We've seen it in Gaza and the West Bank, and now we're seeing it in Lebanon. Where does it all end?
If it were true that keeping the Palestinian state from being recognized would eventually lead to fruitful negotiations that allow the state of Palestine to be recognized and, ultimately, lead to the conclusion of a peace agreement that benefits both Israelis and Palestinians, we would know it. It would already be done. It doesn't work, because there's an imbalance of power: One internationally recognized state has the backing of powerful nations around the world, and the other has been under illegal occupation since 1967. Slowly but surely, the country under occupation is being eaten up.
Will this situation continue for decades to come, or will we decide to be bold and brave to force all the parties to sit at the table and finally agree to lasting peace that will benefit both the Israelis and the Palestinians? These two peoples can't possibly live in a state of permanent war. That is what they're doing, since the original United Nations resolution, which was supposed to create two states, has not been respected and implemented. There are many historical reasons for that, but let's get back to the spirit of having two states.
As Mr. Oliphant mentioned—and I agree with him—for there to be a two-state solution, there have to be two states. It has to be two states at the negotiating table, not one state and a country under occupation. In the current situation, there is a state and a country under occupation, a country whose territory is being eaten up by the occupying power.
During World War II, Canada would have been on the front lines denouncing a situation like this and encouraging people to fight this oppression, this occupation. What happened to Canada's boldness, its tradition of bravery that Mr. Chong referred to when he talked about World War II? We hope to get it back. As Ms. McPherson said, we don't need a study from this committee for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to do that immediately.
If I may say so, I fear that a study would help sidestep the issue so that the minister doesn't have to do it. Also, the original motion suggested that we devote “no less than six meetings” to it.
You're aware of the tense atmosphere in our Parliament at the moment. There's a constant threat of non-confidence motions from the official opposition. The government is hanging on by a thread, and we think we can hold at least six meetings to debate whether or not to recognize the Palestinian state?
I asked last week that the number of meetings be reduced to four at the most. However, the amended motion before us proposes “no less than four meetings”. I think it has to be “no more than four meetings”, otherwise it will never happen. But it has to happen. It's an absolute necessity.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chair, I'm sad to say that I'm going to have to vote against this amended motion and support the government's original motion, even if I don't like it, because to me it seems to be all about saving the minister's skin, plain and simple. It's to save her from having to speak out publicly, to buy her some time. It will dodge the issue and kick the can down the road, and keep from having to make a decision while the committee reflects on the issue.
We should be able to do this today, but we are choosing not to by moving this motion. I don't like the way the government is proceeding right now, but it's better than nothing. I will therefore be supporting the government's original motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'd like to cede my time. I'll contribute after we vote on this amendment.
I'd like for us to vote on the amendment.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Briefly, we support a two-state solution. However, we strongly believe, based on logic, that this two-state solution can only be arrived at as a result of negotiation between the two parties—the Israelis and the Palestinians—who must come to an agreement that has popular support and legitimacy among Israelis and Palestinians.
The Prime Minister has indicated, as the parliamentary secretary said, that his government would consider recognizing a Palestinian state at the right time but not necessarily at the last step along the path. Mr. Chair, the risk in that statement is that the government is considering the recognition of a Palestinian state sooner rather than later. The committee, by adopting the motion as it was originally worded, risks encouraging the Government of Canada to do the same. The reason we are opposed to this, as I said before, is that a two-state solution cannot only be the result of a declaration of Palestinian statehood. Rather, it's the result of an agreement negotiated between the two parties.
A democracy cannot come into existence simply because of a declaration or the conduct of a single election. A democracy is the result not only of an election or the adoption of a constitutional order but also of democratic institutions and democratic checks and balances on power that are ongoing—ones that are daily and that have popular support and legitimacy. That is how democracies come about. It's a long, arduous process, as we see in history. It's the same thing with achieving statehood. It cannot simply be the result of a declaration. It must come about as a result of a difficult process of negotiation between the two parties involved in a conflict.
That is the reason, Mr. Chair, why I presented this amendment and why we cannot support the main motion if it is not amended.
NDP
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'll be very quick, Mr. Chair.
The only thing I will follow up on from Mr. Chong's comments is that the state of Palestine exists. It already exists. What we are talking about here is the recognition from the Canadian government of that state. For him to bring forward the argument that there needs to be an agreement by Israel for Palestine to exist is actually factually incorrect. In fact, when you have a partner like Israel right now saying that they will not negotiate, that can hardly be a rationale for us to move forward as a country.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you very much.
I have no one else on the speaking list. Would we like to put this to a vote?
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I should underscore that this is on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go back to the original motion.
Mr. Hoback.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
On a point of order, Chair, the original motion talked about six meetings, and I believe Mr. Bergeron made an amendment to change it to four meetings. Where does that fit into the process? We never debated or passed that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
It is currently at six, unless Mr. Bergeron would like to move a motion on that.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I think we agreed last week on a friendly amendment that there would be no more than four meetings. I just want to make sure that's what everybody understood.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, as the mover of the motion, I accept this as a friendly amendment, that it be no less than four meetings.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Okay. Well, I was hoping that it would be no less than four. Maybe that would be the compromise. Let's aim for four, but if the committee agrees that we need more, then we can discuss it.
I think no less than four is a good compromise, Mr. Bergeron.
