Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2023

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

I would like to move my motion, which was sent on April 20, that I moved last week and that the debate was adjourned on.

That motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and in light of recent events in Israel and Palestine, the committee conduct a study on the actions Canada should take—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

I'm sorry, Ms. McPherson. As a point of order, that motion has been moved. It can't be moved again. You can move that the committee resume consideration on it. It is a dilatory motion, so we'll go directly to a vote.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to do that.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

You're moving that the debate on the motion be resumed. Is there a need for a vote?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, and I would like to actually read the motion for those who are watching—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

That's fine.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—and also so that the members of our committee can hear it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

No problem. Go for it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'll read the whole motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and in light of recent events in Israel and Palestine, the committee conduct a study on the actions Canada should take to foster peace and respect for human rights and international law in the region; that the study consist of at least eight meetings; that the Minister of Foreign Affairs be invited to appear and that the committee invite witnesses from Canadian civil society, international humanitarian organizations, and Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations; that the committee report its findings to the House, and that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

We are proceeding directly to a vote on the motion about whether or not to resume consideration of that motion.

Is there a desire for a recorded vote, or is there a will to proceed?

(Motion agreed to)

We are now back in debate on Ms. McPherson's motion.

Do I have members wishing to speak to this motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin with a few comments. Then, I will let the committee know that I will be introducing a first amendment to be considered, after which I will have a second amendment.

I will begin by saying that Canada is a steadfast ally and friend of Israel and a friend of the Palestinian people. I think our position as Canada and the Canadian government is long-standing and has been clear. It has been the position of successive governments. We are committed to the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including the creation of a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel.

We recognize Israel's right to assure its own security and to protect its citizens from attacks by terrorist groups in accordance with humanitarian rights and international humanitarian law, and we recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination. Canada also believes in upholding the rule of law and democracy and in defending the institutions that underpin them. We strongly oppose any unilateral actions that undermine the rule of law and jeopardize international efforts towards lasting peace, and support all efforts towards a two-state solution. We will always support the Israeli and Palestinian peoples in their right to live in peace and security with dignity and without fear.

We agree that a study of the region could be a constructive way to evaluate this work, discuss best practices with civil society partners and assess areas through which we can further collaborate to address issues on the ground. However, in order to be productive, the study must be fact-based and conducted without bias or any prejudged conclusions.

As such, the NDP resolution right now, as it has been drafted and as it is being framed publicly, while very well-intentioned, we don't believe sets the stage for such a study. Therefore, we will put forward a couple of amendments to help us move this issue forward in the spirit of co-operation and collaboration, with the shared goal in mind of best supporting Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

That being said, I would move my first amendment. The first line of the motion begins as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), and in light of recent events in Israel and Palestine, the committee”. I would replace “Israel and Palestine” with “Israel, the West Bank and Gaza”.

We think that statement would better represent Canada's position, long held by successive governments, on our understanding of the area as being Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

That would be my first amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Has the amendment been distributed or sent in writing?

Okay, that is not required. It can still be moved verbally. I just want to make sure that every member understands what the amendment is and that it's clear in both languages. It's not that complicated.

Is any clarity required?

We're in debate on the amendment then.

Ms. McPherson, go ahead please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

Obviously, I have some concerns with the use of the words “West Bank and Gaza” instead of “Palestine” or “occupied Palestinian territory”. I think it's clear that the United Nations uses the term “occupied Palestinian territory”. Many Palestinians have told me that they have expressed that there is a feeling among the Palestinian community that this government is trying to erase their reality and erase the reality of the Palestinian people. I think it's important that we use accurate language and that the “Palestinian people” or the “occupied Palestinian territory” be used instead.

That said, I think this is a vitally important study. I think we will be bringing forward witnesses who will speak about the reality of people both in Israel and Palestine. I think the fact that this foreign affairs committee has not studied this for many years, if not decades, and that Canada does have an important role to play.... The attacks on Israeli and Palestinian civilians, particularly on children, is so appalling that, as a foreign affairs committee, we have an obligation to look at this.

While I am concerned by that amendment, I think it is more important for us to get the study and get the witnesses to this committee to talk about what Canada can do to ensure peace in the region.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Are there other members wishing to speak to the amendment?

Seeing none, is it the wish of the committee for the amendment to carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

We're back to debate on the main motion.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I have a second amendment. This has a few small changes to the wording of the motion.

In the second line where it says, “actions Canada should take to foster peace”, I would insert the words “protect civilians, combat terrorism and uphold respect for human rights”. That is the first part.

I had intended to do all four of these at once, but it may be fairer to the committee to do them one at a time. I'll just do that one right now. I was going to do them all, but I think....

As I was saying, I'm just inserting the words, after “foster peace”, it's “protect civilians, combat terrorism and uphold respect for human rights”.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Just to clarify, the text continues as is?

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

I have a couple more amendments.

Unless you want them all at once.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

No. That's the amendment you're moving for now. Fair enough.

Since we're proceeding verbally, is clarity required for any member about what is being proposed? Is it well understood what's being proposed?

Okay, we'll now proceed to debate on the amendment. Are there members wishing to speak to the amendment?

Seeing none, we'll proceed to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we'll proceed to resume debate.

Mr. Oliphant.

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

I have another amendment. It's “that the study consist of at least four meetings” rather than “eight meetings”. We're not putting a maximum on it, but a minimum of four meetings.

We just worry that our agenda is so long that eight meetings could be a whole season the way things work around here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I assume that's well understood.

Ms. McPherson, go ahead.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I would prefer the eight meetings. One of the things I thought might be a good compromise is that we could look at this study throughout. We could come to it and move on to the other things that are on our agenda. Then we could come back to it multiple times, similar to what we are doing with regard to the study in Ukraine. I think the eight meetings is better, considering how long it's been since we've actually done a study of this region and considering just how important what we're seeing happening in the region is.

I do think that eight is a reasonable number. That said, again, I will be supporting the will of the committee because I think it's just so important that we get this forward. I think the idea that we can then have more meetings as needed once we start looking at this very important topic would be useful.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Are there any other members wishing to speak to this amendment?

Okay, we'll proceed to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to)

Now we'll go back to the main motion.

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

I have another amendment. It's that we replace “the Minister of Foreign Affairs” with “relevant ministers”. Being that there are issues here of development, of defence and of international trade, there are many ministers the committee may want to call. We think it's best to say “relevant ministers” as opposed to just one.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Garnett Genuis]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to propose a compromise. We could say « the relevant ministers, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs.» That way, the relevant ministers would be included, but we would make sure that theMinister of Foreign Affairs will appear. I think that's reasonable.