House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was movement.

Topics

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very measured remarks. I agree that this should not be a partisan issue that divides the House. I have been encouraged to hear colleagues make quite clear that they intend to support their opposition of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement. We heard the parsing by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that there were some Canadians who, uninformed, believed that supporting BDS was helpful and not hateful.

Could the member comment on a quote from an American academic? I am sure he is familiar with the writings of As’ad AbuKhalil, who is a leading proponent of the BDS campaign. He has written:

...the real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel....That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel.

Would my colleague explain to some Canadians who support the BDS campaign that they may be used as tools of hateful propaganda?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I actually am not familiar with the person the hon. member has quoted. However, I am familiar with the fact that there are voices on all sides that sometimes want to use inflamed rhetoric and want to let perhaps whoever is listening to them feel hopeless and that there is no two-state solution out there. Instead of encouraging a thoughtful dialogue engagement, they want to promote division, hate and perhaps war.

That is where we come in, not only as the House of Commons but as the Government of Canada, to be the voice of reason, to be the voice of peace, to put forward an agenda and encourage all sides to find a way to achieve a two-state solution today before tomorrow. That is how we suffocate those people who want to deny the two-state solution.

I call on my colleagues to join me in calling for a peaceful resolution that promotes co-existence and a two-state solution.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague opposite.

Does he think it is up to Parliament and the government to tell Canadians what they can and cannot debate and what opinions they are and are not allowed to have?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe Parliament should be dictating to Canadians what to debate and what not to debate. I believe what is happening right here is a healthy debate. Parliament will have an opportunity to voice its opinion. However, I certainly hope that no one will take any conclusion that Parliament or the government will tell Canadians what to debate and what not to debate.

We live in the greatest country in the world where we encourage dialogue, debate and conversation. We caution against hate. We caution against discrimination, but we want everyone to have a safe space to have a healthy discussion in debate. I have heard many debates happen in Israel that are sometimes more vigorous than we have here. I look forward to having more debates in the House and across the country.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

While I am standing, I want to remind hon. members that if you are asking a question and you are not in your seat, it makes it very confusing and I cannot recognize the person speaking. If you would like to make a comment, please ensure that you are in your seat. It is very difficult from this distance seeing where people are and making them out, when not in their seats. It is okay if you are not sitting in your seat.

In any case, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. What we are talking about in the BDS movement is discrimination on the basis of national origin, not about the convictions of the entities involved. Surely that is a matter on which the House can and should express its opinion. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks specifically about not discriminating on the basis of national origin. If our Constitution can express an opinion on such matters, surely the House can as well.

In this context, does the member believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, that must be a planted question.

Our government put Hamas on a terrorist list. We believe Hamas is a terrorist organization until it gives up terrorist activities and joins us in our call for peaceful dialogue and consultations to reach a peaceful resolution to the two-state outcome that we would like to achieve.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who is over here by me today.

We have been debating the motion before us today for several hours now. In case some people are just joining us, I would like to reread the text of the motion moved by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka:

That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.

Today we heard that the government plans to support the motion. The real question is how the government intends to act on this motion to ensure that Canada continues to play a leadership role in promoting Canadian values and respecting freedom of expression while also strongly condemning all forms of racism and anti-Semitism.

The reason it is just to speak out against this campaign is that the intentions behind the BDS movement go against one of the two parties involved in this situation in the Middle East, as well as Canada's traditional position, which is to support a two-state solution with both states living side by side in peace.

What is needed now is not to support this motion as an empty gesture simply to score political points, but rather because it embodies Canadian values and should be followed by government action aimed at combatting any form of anti-Semitism.

We oppose this campaign because Canada's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is clear and supports both Israel and Palestine.

Canada recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement.

That is an excerpt from the Canadian policy on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I would add “a negotiated peace”. That is what is needed. Right before that, it also states:

Canada supports Israel's right to live in peace with its neighbours within secure boundaries and recognizes Israel's right to assure its own security.... Israel has a right under international law to take the necessary measures, in accordance with human rights and international humanitarian law, to protect the security of its citizens from attacks by terrorist groups.

Again, behind the motivations of the BDS movement, we find no respect for the principle of the State of Israel and Palestine living side by side, which is a Canadian policy. That is why I encourage hon. members to speak out.

Over the course of the day, a number of MPs said that this was a matter of freedom of expression and wondered why we should be taking a position. As elected members, it is our role and that of the government, as leader, to stand up for Canadians' values and principles and to address these insidious forms of anti-Semitism.

We are not the first to do so. We did that here in the House when Maclean's accused Quebec of being the most corrupt province. All parliamentarians, including the NDP members, who are dragging their feet today, unanimously spoke out strongly against that statement. Today, we are being called to do so on an extremely important issue. The Quebec National Assembly did so over four years ago on February 9, 2011, as the hon. member for Calgary Shepard reminded us this morning.

The following motion was moved jointly by members from the various political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, including Liberal, PQ, and ADQ—now CAQ—members. I am thinking of Eric Caire, the MNA for La Peltrie, Martin Lemay, the MNA for Sainte-Marie—Saint-Jacques, Lawrence Bergman, the MNA for D'Arcy-McGee, and Marc Picard, the MNA for Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, the riding where I live. At that time, they moved the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Quebec condemn the boycott that has been held for several weeks in front of Boutique Le Marcheur in Montreal.

Members will recall that an honest Quebec merchant who had been running a business in Montreal for 25 years and selling shoes from all over the world had groups of protesters outside his store threatening his customers.

The Quebec National Assembly said:

That, by virtue of the principles of free enterprise and the free market, the National Assembly support the owner of this business, Yves Archambault, who has been established on this street for 25 years and who pays taxes in Quebec.

That the National Assembly reiterate its support for the Cooperation Agreement Between the Government of Québec and the Government of the State of Israel, which was signed in 1997 and renewed in 2007.

The right to self-determination is an important principle, particularly for the people of Quebec. The only member of the Quebec National Assembly who refused to give consent to debate the motion was the MNA for Mercier. That is unfortunate. It was shameful, as my colleague from Calgary Shepard said. He used the term “repugnant”. It was truly unfortunate that people were attacking a Quebec business as a way of boycotting.

It is important to remember that, with the exception of one MNA, Quebec clearly expressed that anti-Semitism is unacceptable in a free and democratic society. It is unacceptable to Quebec, unacceptable to all the other provinces and territories, and unacceptable to Canada. That is why we have the opportunity to support this motion today. The government has indicated that it intends to support the motion, and that is a step in the right direction.

This is in keeping with Canada's longstanding tradition of leading the way in defending the oppressed and freedom of expression. In November 2010, Canada hosted the second conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism. On that occasion, parliamentarians from around the world worked on developing mechanisms to fight anti-Semitism and address anti-Semitic propaganda in the media and on the Internet. Our government took concrete action in 2010. The member for Calgary Midnapore played an important part, and I salute his leadership in that initiative. I would like to quote our former prime minister, the current member for Calgary Heritage, who said that anti-Semitism is “a pernicious evil that must be exposed, confronted and repudiated whenever and wherever it appears, an evil so profound that it is ultimately a threat to us all.”

As leaders of this society, we are responsible for confronting and eradicating sources of anti-Semitism wherever they arise, because behind this pernicious evil, this black spot that has manifested itself at different times in history, lies a threat to our humanity.

In closing, I will quote the former Liberal member for Mount Royal, Irwin Cotler, who sat in this place not so long ago:

“Israel is the only state and Jews the only people today who are the standing targets of state-sanctioned genocide,” he said, “while also being the only state and the only people accused of genocide... There is a symbiotic relationship between genocidal anti-Semitism and international terrorism. This convergence represents a clear and present danger, not only for Jews, but for our common humanity.

Our common humanity is what the motion is all about.

Today, as Canadians and elected members, we have the opportunity to show the way by standing up and supporting the motion moved by my colleague.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Brampton West Ontario

Liberal

Kamal Khera LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I believe this motion is supportable. However, I am concerned that the opposition has not focused on the policy authority and how it is harmed by BDS. I would ask the member why that is.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I thought my speech was clear, and I thought I did a good job presenting Canada's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is that we respect both sides, both the Palestinian and the Israeli peoples. We believe that a solution can be achieved through respectful negotiations.

What we know about the BDS movement is that one of the parties is the victim of ostracism. This can lead only to hate, violence, and unproductive debate. That is why we want to condemn this movement.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis makes the point that this House and the National Assembly of Québec have previously passed motions criticizing certain actions. What is different about this motion is that it not only calls upon this House to take a certain position, it calls on the state and the government to condemn individual Canadians for promoting a certain viewpoint. I wonder if the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis would agree that is not what we do in a free society?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I humbly disagree with the member, because we have a responsibility as a nation to stand up for the values that are promoted by Canadians. We have to stand up against racism and anti-Semitism because we know that if we do not tackle these threats they may turn into violence and terrorism.

We are being given the opportunity to stand up for what is Canadian, and for our values. That is why I will proudly support this motion.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I may be repeating the same question but with a slightly different angle on it.

BDS is doing damage to the very parties we are trying to bring to the table to discuss humanitarian issues. How is the language in the motion condemning any and all attempts to bring the parties to the table to have a fair and open conversation?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that people of good faith may be tempted to give support and take some action. As the leaders of this country, it is our role to tell people what the motives are behind those actions. That is what this motion is attempting to achieve. It is also the responsibility of the government to educate Canadians about the real issues that are at stake here, which are the germs of anti-Semitism and racism.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we are not debating issues of racism and anti-Semitism. That is not what this is about. This is about a political tactic and whether we agree with that political tactic or not.

The House, supported by the Liberal government of the day, is supporting actions for the government to condemn any attempts made by individuals or organizations. Those organizations would include the two million members of the United Church of Canada, who, whether rightly or wrongly, have decided that they support the divestment movement. I would be more than willing to debate that with them. I do not know if this is a tactic that I personally approve of; however, what I will certainly respect is the right of the United Church of Canada to take a position and for their members to vote.

Therefore, I would ask my hon. colleague this. With the support of the Liberal government now, how does he see us moving forward with respect to the condemnation of individuals for any actions to challenge Israeli policy in the Middle East?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is simple. Why is he refusing to take a stand against BDS, which is a movement that does not promote peace or a peaceful resolution to that conflict? He has an opportunity to stand for our country. Will he take it or step aside?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will start by giving a little history of the way in which members of the House have dealt with issues relating to anti-Semitism which overflowed inevitably into the BDS movement, and to events such as the annual campus Israeli Apartheid Week which takes place in February.

Going back to the 40th Parliament, two Parliaments ago, a group of parliamentarians came together and formed a coalition called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, or CPCCA. For what it is worth, if one were to use cpcca.ca, one will go to our website, which is still up and contains a report.

This was a multi-party group. We had the co-operation of Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, but we did not have the co-operation of the Bloc Québécois, unfortunately. Nonetheless, it included the vast majority of parliamentarians. We operated under a co-chairmanship, with me and Mario Silva, a former Liberal member of Parliament. We were able to work together toward finding what we thought were some useful suggestions as to how Canada could deal with the issue of anti-Semitism.

In fact, Mario Silva and I went on to put together an edited book called Tackling Hate: Combating Antisemitism: The Ottawa Protocol, which contains the protocol and numerous essays by people who participated in that conference. There was then an international conference on anti-Semitism in Ottawa, again co-chaired by Mario Silva and me, which took place in 2010, and the report was issued in 2011.

All of this is by way of trotting out my bona fides on the issue of anti-Semitism. However, I say this because I want to focus on the boycott, divest, sanctions movement as, in practice, something which borders on anti-Semitism. In the hands of some people, sometimes it lapses over into anti-Semitism. For others, it is a cover for anti-Semitism. Then there are others whom I think are involved and do not intend to be anti-Semitic but tend to be anti-Zionist. At any rate, they want to sharply clip Israel's wings and are perhaps innocent of how they are providing unintentional aid and comfort to those who are anti-Semitic.

Let me be clear about the issues that deal with Zionism, the existence of Israel, and the Jewish people.

Israel came into existence following the Second World War as a lifeboat, a safe place for the Jews of the world who had discovered what could happen to them in the worst-case scenario when there was no safe haven. I am, of course, speaking of the European Nazi Holocaust, which wiped out 6.5 million Jews along with many other people. However, with 6.5 million Jews, it is the paradigmatic Holocaust of all time. It is the one that serves as a symbol for all other forms of mass race-based, ethnic-based, or religious-based hatred.

Israel was the place where people could go and know that if nowhere else in the world, they could be fully accepted and have a home. That is the fundamental basis for the existence of Israel. It is the basis for the citizenship law of Israel, which says that any person who is a Jew can go to Israel and make an Aliyah, which means to immigrate to Israel. The definition of Jew is the same one that was used in Hitler's 1938 Nuremberg law. The logic is that if this is how those who sought to destroy us define us, then we know that this is the group that must be protected. Therefore, anybody who has a parent who is a Jew, even if they are not a practising Jew, is able to immigrate to Israel under that law. That is the purpose of the existence of Israel.

However, Israel's existence has been opposed from the very beginning of the country, in 1948, by a number of neighbouring states. A review of what has happened in the decade since reveals that the neighbouring states have bit by bit come to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Therefore, Jordan and Egypt now recognize Israel's right to exist and have diplomatic relations. I will not suggest that they are friends, but they are willing to recognize each other's existence, which is not true for Lebanon. As for Syria, there really is no government of Syria at the moment, but it was traditionally a hardline anti-Israel state.

There are other states that are not merely anti-Israel. No one can say this about any other country in the world, but Israel is the state that was singled out as a target for potential nuclear attack by the Saddam regime in Iraq. It attempted to prepare a nuclear weapon and have the ability to deliver it. It based its legitimacy largely on its ability to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jewish people in Israel. The building of a nuclear weapon that could be used against Israel was also attempted by the Assad regime in Syria. Iran has also spoken very openly about using a nuclear program and a missile development program to wipe out Israel and commit genocide.

Therefore, when Professor Cotler, my former colleague and an esteemed parliamentarian and human rights advocate, spoke in the last few parliaments about Israel being the only country that is threatened with genocide, along with its Jewish people, this is what he was talking about, nuclear annihilation. That is something that is not respectable in any quarter ever, but it is amazing that it is actually treated in some quarters as being respectable when dealing with Israel. That does mean Israel is singled out from the rest of the world.

Turning now from Israel's existential threat, a threat that does not exist for any other country in the world, and then saying that Israel, as it attempts to defend itself, is a country that is somehow engaging in a kind of apartheid is not merely offensive; it is obviously, indeed comically, contrary to the facts of the situation.

I do not mean to imply when I say this that everything that Israel does is acceptable. There are lots of people, including lots of Jews and lots of Israelis, who are very critical of the way their government acts in this or that matter. Thank goodness Israel has a free press and a robust democratic political culture in which these things can be debated. That induces a remarkable degree of moderation.

Even if and when the State of Israel acts immoderately, I do not think it is reasonable to do what many of the people who are involved in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement expect. They expect that Jews have a moral obligation to stand up and make the same kind of caveat statement that I just made. That is not a reasonable expectation.

Would it be reasonable vis-à-vis the People's Republic of China's policies in Tibet? It is effectively engaged in trying to destroy an ancient culture through mass immigration. It suppresses any expression of dissent. It destroys monasteries. Would it be reasonable for us to say that people in Canada of Chinese descent have a moral obligation to get involved and condemn that, to constantly put caveats on it? No, we recognize that it is legitimate to be Chinese, culturally, and not to be regarded as somehow morally responsible for the actions of the People's Republic of China.

I will add that I do not mean to compare the State of Israel and its actions to what the People's Republic of China does. I not think the People's Republic of China, although it is the home to arguably the greatest and most ancient of the surviving cultures in the world, is part of the family of respectable nations that conduct human rights to a standard that is acceptable to the world, whereas Israel does. I simply want to make the point that this expectation of collective responsibility is the very same argument that has been used to justify every form of anti-Semitism throughout the past 2,000 years.

I have only a minute to conclude, but I want to make the point that it is reasonable for us to be critical of every country in the world. I was the chair of the international human rights subcommittee for seven years. All parties worked together by consensus in that subcommittee, and we were willing to look at human rights abuses in any country. I can say that Israel does not stand out as being anywhere close to the front tier of human rights abusers in the world. It is nowhere near that, yet it gets singled out, unlike any other country, for this BDS movement on campuses in Canada and for the atrocious, outrageous Israel apartheid week that occurs every year. It is shameful. It is a blot. I think we should absolutely feel free to condemn this.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I completely agree that it is important to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism. We must combat all forms of exclusion or hate, including anti-Semitism.

However, we have unfortunately seen an appalling increase in acts of anti-Semitism in Hungary in recent years, and his government put Hungary on the list of safe countries.

Could my colleague explain the logic there?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand what the member means by the term pays sûrs.

If I could quickly ask, I was listening in French and she used the term pays sûrs. I do not know what that means because I have not heard it in English. Could I get a clarification on that?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The Government of Canada has a list of safe countries, and Hungary is on the list of safe countries, despite what we are seeing happen in that country.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the safe country designation is that, if a person leaves some other place in the world—say Syria, for example—and finds himself or herself in Hungary, and seeks refugee status there, that person will be regarded as being safe and cannot say he or she is in danger, because of being in Hungary. Let us look at the recent flow of people fleeing Syria across Europe, which was so well reported over the last few months. People were trying to get from countries like Serbia into Hungary. I think that validates the assertion that Hungary is a safe country.

With regard to the rise of anti-Semitism in Hungary, the member is absolutely right. This is a real crisis. In fact, I met with a Hungarian leader to talk about this about a year ago, and he described the situation on the ground as being very grave. It is most unfortunate. I do not think it is a particularly safe country for Jews at this time. That is a tragic difference from the country's past when, for example, at the end of World War II when the Nazis attempted to round up Hungary's Jews, thousands of Hungarians came together to help defend and save the Jews. That is a terrible tragedy, but I do not think it is related to the safe country issue.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country B.C.

Liberal

Pam Goldsmith-Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Given the nature of the language used in the motion, how would he propose to actually have this come into effect? How does one condemn any and all individuals? It seems like a stretch.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not condemning individuals; we are condemning any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups, or individuals to promote the BDS movement here and abroad. We are not condemning individuals for being or existing; we are condemning the attempt to de-legitimize or demonize the State of Israel and, I am suggesting, by extension, to imply that there is some kind of complicity between all Jews everywhere, including Canada, and anything that they find inappropriate in the behaviour of the State of Israel.

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple.

My colleague co-chaired the coalition that developed the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism, and I congratulate him for that.

How does today's motion, which rejects BDS, fit with the leadership role Canada must play in combatting anti-Semitism?

Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

In 30 seconds or less, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.