Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Professor.

Ambassador Allen, could I ask you to also respond to that question?

[Jon Allen]

As I've said before, we're at a bit of a crossroads. Israel is in danger from rockets from the north, from the Houthis and still from Hamas. Israel is in a very difficult situation and it has been for a long time.

However, that doesn't obviate the need to reach out to Palestinians now and as soon as possible. It's as simple as that. One person suffering doesn't mean that another person isn't also suffering.

I can only repeat that Israel's security can only be guaranteed.... You don't have to listen to me. Former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, 500 former Mossad chiefs, heads of the Shin Bet and heads of IDF have all said that the threat is from within. They are all arguing for opening discussions with the Palestinians.

As I said, it's not going to be easy, but it has to begin and it has to be real.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Ambassador.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Now we go to the second round. We start off with MP Epp.

You have three minutes.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today.

I would like to begin with Ms. Verrier-Fréchette.

The U.S., the U.K., Japan, Italy, Germany, France and, of course, Canada.... We've been in lockstep with our G7 allies in the pursuit of a two-state solution. That has not been the question. It's been a long-standing policy of our country, irrespective of the party in power here in Canada, that a two-state solution as a result of negotiations that enjoys the popular support of Palestinians and Israelis is the path to peace.

However, Global Affairs Canada's website now says that recognition of the Palestinian state is not necessarily the last step along that path to achieving a two-state solution, which enjoys the support of all of our G7 partners. For Canada now to go about it.... I think it's a solid argument or widely recognized that perhaps Canada does not have the most influence of our G7 allies in the region, so what are the implications for Canada to go out ahead of our G7...?

I'll begin with Ms. Verrier-Fréchette.

What are the implications, diplomatically, with our G7 partners?

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

I do believe that negotiations are essential to reach peace, security and stability between Israel and Palestinians. I think I made that clear. I also believe that there are tools in our tool box that Canada as a nation has not explored.

Now, Canada could play a more active role and could lead the international community in trying to usher a path towards peace and security. This would be done through a number of actions, which I've briefly outlined before, including Security Council resolutions that indicate the parameters for a peace agreement and for the negotiations.

There are actually options that, as an international community, we have not yet explored. Canada could play a more active role to lead this. Failing that, I personally fear greater tragedy—

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'll interrupt and get one more question to you.

I hear you calling for international collaboration in that approach, yet Canada is a member of the Five Eyes. I'll expand it even beyond our G7 partners. What are the implications of Canada going ahead of even our Five Eyes allies in doing so? There must be ramifications back to our own relationships with our fellow partners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Be very brief, please, less than 15 seconds.

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

I think what is key here is to keep in mind the current tragedy and to try to usher a path for peace, and this is truly through negotiations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We next go to MP Zuberi.

MP Zuberi, you have three minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today for this extremely important study.

I would like to first put the question to Mr. Kersten. With respect to the recognition of the state and recognizing a government, can you speak to how the two are different?

Many will say that to recognize the state of Palestine is to reward a group. Is that the case? Can you please elaborate on how the recognition of the state of Palestine is different from the recognition of a government?

[Mark Kersten]

Of course, recognizing a government is different from recognizing a state, and we know this as Canadians. Canada exists irrespective of which government is in power at any given time. Governments come and go. Statehood is a legal, juridical fact in international law, so recognizing Palestine as a state does not mean that Canada would have to recognize any particular government that would govern that territory.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

This is the current situation in Afghanistan, for example.

[Mark Kersten]

For example, yes, and this is an important point. Canada is taking Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice over the questions of gender apartheid. It cannot take a government that may change; it must take a state. It's a fact of international law that the world has divided itself into states.

Of course, you're absolutely right that it is not a reward for anyone. We hear this over and over again. I would ask, when the point is made that recognition is a reward for Hamas or for terrorism, are we saying that our allies Sweden and Spain are seeking to reward terrorism? Of course not. That would be an awful thing to tell our allies. It is not a reward; it is a right.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

As a follow-up question on a different matter, with respect to the ICC, ICJ, other international instances, UNESCO and other UN type bodies, how would Canada's policies towards applications made by the state of Palestine be different from the current situation we find ourselves in?

[Mark Kersten]

You're right that Palestine has sought recognition in international institutions and is recognized as the state of Palestine before the ICC.

Of course, I think what's important to highlight there is an attempt of the Palestinian people and some leaders in Palestine to seek law and not war. International law is profoundly imperfect, but it is an avenue and can sometimes be an off-ramp offering people hope aside from seeking further violence. I think that Canada's recognizing Palestine won't in and of itself change the landscape, but it can lead to important diplomatic and legal consequences for Canada as well.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Would it further peace and security in the region—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'm afraid you're out of time, Mr. Zuberi.

We next go to Mr. Bergeron.

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Government of Canada supports Palestinians' right to self-determination. Canada opposes permanent Israeli control over the occupied territories and opposes settlements.

My question is for Mr. Allen and Ms. Verrier‑Frechette.

What has Canada done so far to support the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and oppose the permanent occupation and the expansion of settlements?

I put my question to Mr. Allen and Ms. Verrier‑Frechette.

Would one of them like to answer my question?

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

I can briefly start.

Clearly, Canada has led a key role in past peace negotiations, including during the Madrid peace process. Does this mean we have done enough? Of course, I do not think we have done enough. I think we could do much more.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you.

[Jon Allen]

I would add that in respect of the opposition to settlement expansion and the creation of illegal settlements, which is what is happening right now in very significant numbers, Canada has done something. It has imposed sanctions on certain of the worst of the settlers who are creating violence in the West Bank, but it could do much more. It should consider imposing sanctions on ministers of the Israeli government who are advocating annexation and resettlement of Gaza. Those measures are directly contrary to a possible two-state solution. If we support a two-state solution, then we should be sanctioning those who try to prevent it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

MP McPherson, you have a minute and a half.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that comment, Ambassador Allen. I think that's an important thing to note.

I'd also like you to comment, if you could, on yesterday's decision to ban UNRWA and list the United Nations agency as a terrorist organization. Can you talk about the impacts this will have on the conversation about two states and Palestinian human rights?

[Jon Allen]

As I said, we're really not talking about two states right now. We're talking about the grave humanitarian situation in Gaza, where 90% of Gazans have left their homes and some 40,000 have been killed, according to reports. Without UNRWA to provide aid and humanitarian assistance, they will be in even more dire straits. It's absolutely not clear how any humanitarian assistance can be delivered without UNRWA on the ground.

Whether or not you agree with UNRWA, and there have been criticisms of them, criticizing UNRWA for 12 employees who allegedly were part of a terrorist group is like wanting to shut down the New York police force because of 12 or 15 or 20 corrupt cops. There are 13,000 employees of UNRWA working around the Middle East. They are essential to delivering aid to millions of people. I do hope the Israeli government will consider the various pleas by governments around the world to reverse that decision.