Mr. Cotler, we've had occasion to work together in international fora and here at home. I've always enjoyed the spirited exchange of debate in which we have engaged. I've always found you to be very gentlemanly and open to those exchanges.
Today I want to take a look at what I consider to be a legitimate policy disagreement between our two parties. I'm going to quote from Mr. Ivison's piece in which he recounted Israel's request for Canada to leave Durban I. He says as follows:
However, that is not the recollection of Alan Baker, Israel's former ambassador to Canada who was the head of the Israeli delegation in Durban. In an interview from Israel, he said that his government asked Canada, the U.S. and a number of European countries to pull out of Durban but the Canadian delegation was directed by Ottawa to stay.
It all suggests that there is some rewriting of history in Mr. Cotler's assertion that Canada stayed in Durban at the request of the Israelis. The decision to stay seems to have been made before any such request was forthcoming, which validates the claim that the Liberals were “willing participants in Durban”.
I'm also going to quote the Canadian Jewish Congress report, the final report on the Durban conference in October 2001. It says:
Canadian Jewish delegates, led by the CJC's President, in a meeting with the Minister and the officials named above, asked that she walk out of the Conference when she came to the conclusion that there was no possibility for a changed document to be negotiated. The delegations stressed, as well, that a document in any way unchanged had to be rejected by Canada....
When the United States and Israel announced their withdrawal from the Conference, CJC thought it especially important that they not have to go it alone, and reiterated a call for Canada to do the same.
Now, years later, the Conservative government did make that decision, to pull out of the Durban II conference. These are two different approaches. Neither of these approaches is inspired by bad motives, but they are different policy approaches. While there is conflicting evidence as to the reasons why the Liberal government stayed at the Durban conference, it really doesn't matter whether or not the government of that day was asked to stay or asked to leave by a foreign government, because every government makes its own decisions. Here in Canada, under this Conservative government, we left Durban before anyone asked us to. We left the Durban process before Israel, the United States, Great Britain, or any other country left themselves. We led.
Now that is a legitimate policy disagreement. Those are two different approaches to the same issue. I would submit to you that it's perfectly reasonable in the debate about Middle East policy that the distinction would be highlighted. Why do you feel that pointing to a legitimate policy disagreement like this one should be disqualified when your colleague, Mr. Volpe, points to perceived policy disagreements he has identified and sent to his constituents? Is it not fair, if Mr. Volpe is going to send material to the community in his constituency, that other parties would discuss policy distinctions as well?