Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 123 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I'd like to remind the participants and the witnesses of the following. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed to the chair. For those members who are joining us virtually, please raise your hand if you wish to speak.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, September 19, 2024, the committee is commencing its study of Canada's advancement of a two-state solution.

Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, last week, I asked the clerk a question, and he told me to refer it to the chair. Therefore, we—

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm not getting the English translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Could you give us a couple of minutes?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Is the interpretation working? I'm being told it is.

Last week, I asked the clerk a question, and he referred me to the chair.

Therefore, we put the question to the chair. Since I didn't get an answer, I'll simply ask you the question, Mr. Chair.

To follow up on previous meetings, have we sent a formal invitation to Ms. Albanese?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Sure.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Allow me to clarify that with the clerk, if the clerk can just tell us what happened there.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre (Sacha) Vassiliev]

Yes. She was invited whenever the members agreed to add her to the work plan for the study, and, otherwise, the invitation was rescinded once the members agreed to do so.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I gave notice of the following motion:

That the Foreign Affairs Committee invite Ms. Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, to an informal meeting with members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Does everyone have a copy of the motion? Did you want to speak to it, Mr. Bergeron?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I don't want to belabour the motion. I simply want to say that everyone knows that this person may have made highly controversial remarks. That said, she represents the United Nations and certainly has information about human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. She is definitely able to provide us with relevant information. Further to the previous discussions we've had among ourselves, which I won't dwell on, I would like us to at least have the opportunity to meet with her informally.

My fellow members who are available and interested could take part in the meeting, and those who are not would have the option not to attend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would just briefly say that we won't support the motion to have an informal meeting of the committee. In the last motion, we requested that she submit any comments she had in writing, which I think would then go into evidence, whereas an informal meeting would not. Given the schedules that we have as MPs and all of that, with the pressures right now on a very collapsed timetable, we would prefer to not have an informal meeting scheduled.

However, if members want to meet with her, that's up to them. Either she could organize that, or one of the members of the committee could have a meeting in their office. We're not in support of an informal meeting at this time, but if she wants to submit something in writing, that would be helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Does anyone else want to speak to this motion? No.

Okay. I will call the vote.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now, I will welcome the witnesses.

We're very grateful to have Professor Kersten, from the University of the Fraser Valley, with us here in person. We have Ambassador Jon Allen, who is currently a senior fellow at the Munk school of global affairs and public policy. We also have Ms. Katherine Verrier-Fréchette, who's joining us virtually as well.

You will each be provided five minutes for your opening remarks. We'll start off with Professor Kersten. Then we'll go to Ambassador Allen and Ms. Verrier-Fréchette.

Mr. Kersten, you have five minutes.

[Mark Kersten, Assistant Professor, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There is no reason for Canada to wait to recognize Palestine. It is time. Palestinian statehood is a legal fact. There are 146 out of 193 United Nations member states that currently recognize Palestine. Our allies, Sweden, Ireland, Ukraine, Norway and Spain, all recognize Palestine, but not Canada. Why?

Let me take this opportunity to dispel some arguments that have been put forward against immediate recognition.

First, some claim that Canada should not recognize Palestine, because doing so would go against our NATO and G7 allies. However, Sweden, Norway and Spain are NATO members, so too are Poland and Czechia, which all recognize Palestine. G7 countries, like France and Japan, have likewise moved closer to recognizing Palestinian statehood. In the May vote at the UN General Assembly, only the United States of the G7 voted against Palestinian statehood.

Second, it is said that recognizing Palestine as a state is a “reward for Hamas and terrorism”. This argument is both duplicitous and, frankly, dangerous. It relies on an assumption that Palestinians are, themselves, Hamas or supporters of terrorism, a notion that drives the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians and is used regularly to justify atrocities.

Recognition is not a reward, nor is recognition a consolation for the relentless and well-documented war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinian people. Self-determination is a basic and inalienable human right. It is the right of Palestinians.

The international covenants on civil and political rights, and on economic, social and cultural rights—both treaties Canada signed and ratified—list the right of all peoples to self-determination. They do so in article 1.

Third, some say that recognizing Palestine as a state would undermine the prospects of a negotiated two-state solution. There's no evidence for this proposition. What has undermined the two-state solution are the atrocities of Hamas and Israel, neither of which are interested in a Palestinian state existing beside Israel. It is hard not to conclude that the argument that recognition can only be achieved if Israel agrees to it through negotiation is a cover to permit the continued destruction and annexation of Palestinian land.

Recognizing two states cannot undermine a two-state solution. Rather, it might just jump-start a new, better and more promising political solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Spain, our ally, has said that recognizing Palestine is “the only way of advancing towards what everyone recognises as the only possible solution to achieve a peaceful future, one of a Palestinian state that lives side by side with the Israeli state in peace and security”. Why can Canada not do the same?

As the International Court of Justice has ruled, the right to self-determination is not conditional on a non-existent peace process. Canada cannot condition the right of Palestinians to self-determination on the interests of a government openly engaged in the destruction and illegal occupation of Palestine.

Finally, some say recognizing Palestine is wrong, because it departs from long-standing Canadian policy. What justifies the same policy in the face of mass slaughter?

Canada should depart from long-standing policy. Otherwise, it risks doing the same thing over and over again and saying the same things over and over again while expecting a different result. The status quo isn't fit for purpose. Recognizing Palestine now should be easy for Canada. Palestine exists. We'd only be joining our allies. Indeed, there are no good arguments not to recognize Palestine. There is no reason for delay.

Let me leave you with an image. It's 15 years from now, and the world is coming to terms with its inaction in the face of atrocities committed against civilians in Gaza. Canadian members of Parliament stand in the House of Commons to recognize a day of mourning for the tens of thousands of lives lost. Perhaps the Prime Minister apologizes on national television for not doing more, when we all knew and we all watched the massacres take place. What will you say to your children or grandchildren who ask you then, “What did you do?”

Canada has an opportunity to do something no Canadian government has done before, and something that is legally, politically and diplomatically the right thing to do. This committee has voted to study the quickest path to recognition. The quickest path is the one that you take today. The time has now come to recognize Palestine.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Professor Kersten.

We now move to Ambassador Allen for five minutes.

[Jon Allen, Senior Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and Former Canadian Ambassador to Israel (2006-10), As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me open by saying that I'm Jewish. My wife is the child of Holocaust survivors. I have a sister, nieces and nephews who live in Israel within kilometres of the Lebanese border and daily fire from Hezbollah rockets. For me, Israel's existence and security are fundamental.

That's precisely why everything I'm going to say is premised on my strongly held belief that “two states for two peoples” is the only solution that can end the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, and ultimately bring security and safety to both. The greatest threat to Israel is from within, and it will never be secure as long as it continues to occupy the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza.

Indeed, two states and the illegality of Israeli settlements—which are among the greatest obstacles to two states—have been central to the foreign policies of Canada and its western allies for decades. Unfortunately, our governments have done little to nothing to prevent settlement expansion or advance the goal of two states. As I understand it, however, one of the main objectives of the committee today is to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state.

First, let me say that recognition of a Palestinian state is not about peace in the region today or even tomorrow. Few people in Israel or Palestine can focus on two states right now. Israelis are still experiencing a collective national trauma over the events of October 7 and remain focused on their hostages, soldiers, evacuees and highly unpopular government. Palestinians are suffering their greatest tragedy since the Nakba in Gaza, and violence and fear pervade the West Bank.

Recognizing a Palestinian state now is about sending a message of hope and commitment to Palestinians and sending a clear message to Israel and others that simply managing the conflict—Israel's policy for the last 17 years—is not an option and never was. If October 7 has taught us one thing, it's that continuing to occupy Palestine and Palestinians without creating a pathway to end the conflict can only end badly for both peoples.

Why do I support early recognition of a Palestinian state?

I believe the Palestinian people desperately need a horizon for peace and a clear path forward if the Palestinian Authority is to revitalize itself and begin to fully govern as a state.

Moreover, recognizing a Palestinian state now would confirm that Palestinians are a legitimate national people deserving of the same rights and responsibilities as Jewish Israelis. It would demonstrate to Palestinians that the international community's words regarding two states, settlement expansion and violence are being translated into action and commitment. Such recognition doesn't obviate the need for new governments in Israel and Palestine. It still requires a willingness to compromise on both sides. It doesn't mean the final status issues to be resolved between Israel and Palestine have been resolved, but it sends a clear message that this is where Canada and the international community are committed to going, and that Israelis and Palestinians must move in that direction too.

Third, it would give hope to a people who—following 57 years of occupation, the current death and destruction in Gaza and the continuing violence in the West Bank—desperately need a signal that the international community does not consider all Gazans to be “Hamasniks” and does not consider all Palestinians to be supporters of violence. Hope and a path forward to end the conflict can do much to reduce violence and offer the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis an alternative future.

Fourth, it sends a signal that Israel does not have a veto over the future of the Palestinian people.

Should Israel have a say in the future of the region? Of course it should. Does it have the right to peace and security in this dangerous and unforgiving region? Absolutely. Will negotiations over the final status issues be difficult? Undoubtedly, but the Palestinians are not schoolchildren who must do all their homework, change leadership, end corruption, hold elections and agree to final borders before Israelis are prepared to even begin talking peace.

Who challenges Israel when its prime minister holds up a map at the United Nations that pictures Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan? Who conditions support for Israel when its government's coalition agreement provides for the annexation of the West Bank or when its ministers and MKs advocate resettling Gaza?

As was just mentioned, 146 of 193 UN member states already recognize a Palestinian state, including 14 EU members. Others, including Belgium, are considering it. Canada has consulted with Australia and New Zealand, who are also considering the question. The U.S. and the U.K. have asked for recommendations. Clearly, the train is leaving the station. In my view, Canada and its closest allies, all of whom support two states—even more now, post-October 7, than before—should all get on board that train.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to take your questions on this issue and on the issue of two states more generally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We now go to Ms. Katherine Verrier-Fréchette.

You have five minutes before we open it up to questions from the members.

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, esteemed members of this committee and Canadian citizens as well.

It is an honour to be here today. I am speaking from the Middle East, where I live and work at this time. I have agreed to appear today to present my point of view regarding the two-state solution and whether the international community, in particular Canada, can still support it and usher in an era of peace and security with a Palestinian state and an Israeli state living side by side.

I am speaking today as an individual, and the views I present here are my own and only my own.

I am a former Canadian diplomat, in particular, a former head of mission and representative of Canada to the Palestinian Authority. I, like Canada, support a two-state solution that will end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a permanent manner. In these tragic times, more than ever, I argue that the traditional and fundamental tenet of Canadian foreign policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be the unifying and unwavering vision for the future that Canada brings back to the forefront: a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians on the basis of two states, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

The current tragedy offers a sobering view of what an alternative future would hold if Israelis, Palestinians and the international community fail to work towards this unifying objective. This would be a future of objectionable violence, even more so than what we have been witnessing. In this future, extremists on both sides prevail and terrorism flourishes.

This alternative would fail to deliver a state for the Palestinians and would also fail to deliver any security for Israel. It would corrupt the Israeli polity to its very core, turning it into a perpetual, ever more violent international actor whose sons and daughters are turned into agents of oppression. It would also corrupt the Palestinian polity to its very core, anchoring only terrorism, violence and destitution and stripping the Palestinians of their sense of agency, of their future and of their honour.

A negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the only path toward the establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state and the security of the State of Israel. This is partly because no other path has been identified to reach the objective and also partly because history has taught us that a negotiated solution to a conflict is the most likely one to be successful at resolving the conflict in the medium and long term. However, what can Canada and the international community do?

Israelis and Palestinians are first and foremost those who must decide that it is in their best interest to negotiate to resolve the conflict. This prospect is slim at this time, given the tragedy unfolding before our eyes. That said, Canada and the rest of the international community can play a role to try to usher in a path leading to negotiations.

I am outlining here a handful of strategic ideas that can potentially ground Canada's foreign policy. These ideas are not exhaustive, and none of these ideas would be sufficient to bring about a path towards negotiation and Palestinian statehood. However, they do represent tools in our foreign-policy tool box, options that we are not exploring today and should be exploring.

The first of these options is a framework with clear parameters for a two-state solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Ms. Verrier-Fréchette, you're over time already. You're almost a minute over time.

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

Can you give me one more minute to just outline my ideas, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Sure. I can give you another 30 seconds.

[Katherine Verrier-Frechette]

Thank you so much.

The first option is a framework with clear parameters for a two-state solution with the United Nations Security Council. A United Nations Security Council resolution is the only international tool in the tool box to actually implement and enforce parameters for negotiations. It is the only tool that has not been explored to date, and it should be explored.

The second is meaningful support for the capabilities of a Palestinian state to govern itself as a state.

The third is strong steps against extremists—Palestinian and Israeli—which can include further political and legal actions against violent settlers and their leaders, as well as political representatives in the Knesset and government.

The fourth is strong support for moderate voices on both sides.

The fifth—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Excuse me. I'm going to have to cut you off. I've made my point. You have every opportunity to provide us with written submissions should it not come up when the members ask you questions.

For the first round, there are four minutes each, and we start with MP Morantz.