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.
Andrew Scheer ConservativeHouse Leader of the Official Opposition
Mr. Speaker, now for the question everyone has been waiting for: can the government House leader update the House as to what the business will be for the rest of this week and the following week?
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I know colleagues look forward to this every week. I will be brief.
This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the Conservative opposition motion.
Tomorrow, we will resume debate on government Motion No. 2, which was moved by the Prime Minister yesterday, concerning Canada's fight against ISIL.
I am currently negotiating with the House leaders of the other parties to come to an agreement on the length of the debate. We will continue debating that motion next Monday and Tuesday. If we manage to conclude the debate on Tuesday evening, on Wednesday we will proceed with second reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Finally, Thursday of next week will be an allotted day.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I would ask all hon. members who have other business than the debate this afternoon to make their way to their respective lobbies.
We are back on orders of the day. The hon. member for Mount Royal had three minutes remaining in his time for his remarks.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to resume. It is difficult sometimes to split a speech in two. If I had not convinced everyone in the House that BDS is a bad thing by the time we started members' statements, then I have failed in my mission. Therefore, for the balance of my time I would like to explain why the motion is not a violation of freedom of expression. I would like to convince members on that side of the House that they should join with us in the government and in the official opposition in supporting the motion, because what is not being asked is to ban free speech.
The motion reads:
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.
It does not say that we are not allowing people to have freedom of speech. It is not saying we are putting this in the Criminal Code and throwing people into prison because they promote BDS. It is not saying that we are not allowing people to go forward and promote their views. What it is saying is that the government will condemn those views, which are views we should oppose, because BDS is a new form of anti-Semitism.
I would ask the members of the NDP, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, to look at the resolution and to substitute the word “anti-Semitism” for the word “BDS”. If you called on the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups, or individuals to promote anti-Semitism, both here at home and abroad, would you not vote in favour of the motion?
BDS is clearly singling out Israel. It is clearly a new form of anti-Semitism. We in the House have always condemned racism. We have always condemned xenophobia, and we condemn those who promote it. It does not mean that everyone who supports the BDS movement is an anti-Semite, but the movement itself is anti-Semitic. The end result is, that is what it does. It makes Jewish and pro-Israel students feel uncomfortable on Canadian campuses. It makes them feel uncomfortable to go to school. That is not right.
Therefore, in the end result, I would ask those people who are opposed to BDS to support the motion and not to say they are not doing so because of a violation of freedom of expression.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Just before we go to questions and comments, a reminder to all hon. members to direct their commentary, questions, and speech in general to the Chair and not to other hon. members.
Questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister asked a question about this. She said, “I find this wording peculiar in that when I think about this movement I also think about apartheid and how, at the time, we had to engage in discourse with persons who agreed and did not agree with something that was quite terrible in our history.”
I am sure my colleague opposite knows that members who are familiar with the BDS movement would probably also take offence with the use of the term “apartheid” in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I was wondering if perhaps he would provide some advice to his colleague on the use of this term in this particular context.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, what I think is important with the motion is that we in both parties agree that BDS is a bad thing. We should look at the unity this brings as opposed to trying to divide. Therefore, I am not going to start speculating about what one person said or did not say.
As to the substance though, I am very pleased to agree with my hon. colleague that there is nothing in this that leads to an analogy with apartheid. Israel is the furthest thing from an apartheid state. Arab citizens in Israel, non-Jewish citizens in Israel, have full civil and equal rights if they are citizens of Israel living within the borders of Israel proper. They have a right to vote. They have freedom of speech. They can go before the courts. Therefore, any attempt to claim that Israel is an apartheid state is absolutely unacceptable and beyond the pale.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's passionate expression of his opinion, and I fully respect that opinion.
There are many people on this side of the House and in our party who share his view that BDS is not an appropriate response to Israel's activities in the Middle East. However, I must say that the issue, from my point of view, is that not everybody shares that position.
My friend says that when we look at this motion we substitute the word “anti-Semitism” for those who advocate a BDS approach as a way of influencing Israel's behaviour in the occupied territories, as an example. I would remind the member that it is the official position of Canada that Israel's occupation of territories after 1967 are a violation of international law, and that everybody in this House does call on Israel to withdraw from those territories in a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and we support that.
No doubt there are some people who espouse BDS who may have anti-Semitic feelings, but I also happen to know that there are those who do not have any anti-Semitism in them whatsoever, who do espouse BDS as an approach to put pressure on the Government of Israel. While I do not share that approach, I do respect their right to hold that opinion. Does the member not feel that in Canada, a nation founded on the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, where we have freedom of expression and opinion in this country, that this House should not condemn people for holding a political belief honestly held about a particular political issue that he may respectfully disagree with, but that both can hold in good faith?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree that there should be freedom of expression. Condemning someone's speech does not mean that I am stating that their speech should be taken away. I want to clarify that, and I believe that is the intention of all the members who would be supporting this motion.
With respect to that issue, my mentor Irwin Cotler has declared that BDS is indeed a new form of anti-Semitism. I agree with him. It is not the old religious anti-Semitism that used to exist saying that the Jews killed Christ, and it is not the racial anti-Semitism that used to exist that was promulgated by the Nazis. However, it is singling out the State of Israel for vilification.
In order for BDS to not be anti-Semitic, then that movement in some cases would have to take all of the states that violate human rights around the world and all of the disputed territories, and lump them all together in the hundreds and advocate for each of them equally. That is not what the BDS movement is currently doing. The BDS movement is currently singling out the only Jewish state in the world for vilification.
With respect to the comments about the territories occupied after 1967, BDS does not only support that this applies to the territories occupied after 1967. It is saying to boycott goods made in the State of Israel in the pre-1967 borders and to not allow Israeli citizens who are academics or athletes who were living in the state before 1967 to go to international conferences. It has nothing to do with the territories. It is all of Israel that BDS seeks to vilify, and for that reason—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader.
Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position, whether it is our Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on this issue in terms of explaining the position of the government.
One of the things I want to highlight and ask the speaker to provide comment on is that in an ideal situation this particular resolution could have been worded better. Could the member provide some of his thoughts on whether he believes there could have been some modifications on the words that would have made the motion that much stronger for the House to debate today?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, again I am going to give the same response for my own colleague as I did for the member from across.
To me, this is a motion that should unite, not divide. I am not going to seek to reflect different wording for a motion that was provided. Maybe I would have personally worded it differently. Maybe the member would have. Maybe the government would have. However, in the same respect, this is a motion that is important, it is a motion that is clear, and it is a motion that I support.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on what I thought was an excellent speech, the best speech I have heard from a Liberal in a very long time.
I dare say he got much more applause on this side of the House than he did on his own. We have heard some very concerning things from the government benches about this motion. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this was a divisive motion. While I congratulate the member for acknowledging how important and necessary this motion it is, it should unite us.
I wonder, just in light of some of the things that members of the government have said about this, their equivocation on this issue, and their effort to establish new relations with Iran, how he feels about the actions of his government in that regard, and why Canadians should have confidence in the government when it comes to Israel.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am going to say the same thing back to the hon. member.
That was clearly a question meant to try to divide me from my party, to divide all of us. This is a motion that should be uniting us against something that is not good, which is BDS.
I am fully confident that our Prime Minister and our government support the State of Israel. Our Prime Minister has stated it unequivocally in my riding and across the country. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that we are friends with the State of Israel. The government itself is backing this motion.
Let us unite in agreeing we support Israel; let us unite in fighting anti-Semitism, which I know the hon. member agrees with me on, and fighting racism. Let us try to unite ourselves in all parties, as much as we can, and not divide ourselves.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.
I, too, would like to congratulate the member for Mount Royal on his fabulous speech. I would like to cut and paste his speech over to my time if I could, but I do not think our technology is there yet.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to support the motion of my colleague:
That...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.
As the Member of Parliament for Edmonton West, with a population of some 5,550 people of the Jewish faith in my city, many of whom have ties to Israel, I am proud to stand in support of this motion.
As a member of the organization called CUFI, the Christians United for Israel, I am extremely proud to stand here today.
Not too long ago I attended a service at the Beth Israel Synagogue in my riding of Edmonton West. My personal friend Rabbi Daniel Friedman is a leader of the interfaith community in the riding. He has reached out to the leadership of the local Christian churches and our mosque so they can work together to promote harmony among the faithful.
That morning after the service, he came to me to tell me that the night before the Synagogue had been defaced again with hateful graffiti. Anti Semitism still exists and BDS promotes this.
What the people behind BDS will never tell us is this: Israel is multicultural, multiracial, diverse, and tolerant. This truth is the most powerful antidote to the apartheid lie. We are devoted to aggressively disseminating this truth to everyone.
BDS activists promote the false idea that Israel is solely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict and in turn push for a boycott of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, while exempting the world's worse human rights violators from such attention. These boycotts take many forms, such as telling consumers not to buy Israeli products, calling for universities to cut ties with Israeli professors and academics and for Israelis to be banned from international sports competitions.
By advocating economic coercion against Israelis, BDS is an assault on all Israelis, ironically including those Israelis who are staunch peace activists. BDS uses the kind of language and imagery reserved for pariah states.
There are several reasons why we must reject BDS in all of its forms.
For one, BDS is a form of discrimination. In targeting all Israelis, BDS is a modern-day blacklist and a form of discrimination based on national origin. Just as boycotts have targeted Jews throughout history, today BDS activists call for a boycott of the citizens of the world's only Jewish state, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
Many leaders in the BDS movement openly declare that their goal is not a peaceful, two-state solution but rather the destruction of the state of Israel.
The BDS movement is not pro-Palestinian; it is simply anti-Israel. It is not about helping the people of Palestine; it is about punishing Israel and punishing Jews.
To further this, BDS undermines peace, something that all members in the House want. BDS does nothing to bring the two sides together, to promote peace, or to improve the quality of the life of the average Palestinian. Instead, BDS lays all blame for the conflict on Israel, and removes all responsibility from the Palestinians.
Were BDS successful, it would threaten the livelihood of thousands of Palestinians employed by Israeli companies.
BDS also imports this conflict into Canada. BDS does this by illegitimately targeting businesses, universities, university students, and civil society institutions. Canadian organizations should never be manipulated as a platform for social exclusion and the demonization of Canadians based on their national origin or their religious beliefs, both of which are at odds with Canadian values.
BDS has already failed. Boycotts of Israeli companies are ineffective and, time and again, have only mobilized the Jewish and pro-Israeli communities to buy the very products targeted for boycott. Despite calls for BDS, the Israeli economy has experienced immense growth, as have business, academic, and cultural ties between Israelis and Canadians.
Even more so, BDS hurts those it claims to be helping.
Kristin Lindow, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service, and Moody's lead analyst for Israel, has pointed out this very fact. She made this point in an interview with Forbes magazine. She said:
The impact of BDS is more psychological than real so far and has had no discernible impact on Israeli trade or the broader economy...the sanctions do run the risk of hurting the Palestinian economy, which is much smaller and poorer than that of Israel, as seen in the case of SodaStream.
I would like to move away from the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian relations for a moment, to bring to the attention of the House the economics of the relationship between the two.
Regardless of what our personal thoughts are on Israel or Palestine, the numbers speak for themselves.
Israel, with a population of just eight million people, has a GDP of just under $300 billion. The Palestinian Territories, with a population of four million people, has a GDP of $11 billion.
Israeli sales to the Palestinian Authority were $4.3 billion, about 5% of Israeli exports, which is less than 2% of the Israeli GDP.
In 2012, Palestinian sales to Israel accounted for 81% of Palestinian exports. Palestinian purchases from Israel were two-thirds of total Palestinian imports.
Palestine enjoys a trade surplus with Israel that has tripled over the past several years. Such trade flow asymmetry shows Palestine needs Israel, that the BDS crowd would impair economic ties between these areas, which is something that would hurt Palestinians.
Additionally, despite evidence that trade actually brings people closer together and closer to the ultimate goal of peace, BDS supporters want to obliterate the vast trade surplus Israel extends to Palestine and offer nothing in its place, something that would damage relations between Israelis and Palestinians and something that would lessen peace in the region.
While I know some members in the House may claim that the economic benefits Palestinians receive are grossly overstated, even the Palestinian National Authority's newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida found that salaries and benefits were vastly higher across the board for Palestinians who worked for the Israeli companies. Why? Because Israel does not discriminate.
Israel and Israelis alike do not care where people come from, their religion, or their societal group. Instead, they focus on the hard work, perseverance, and diligence that individuals bring to the job. Israeli companies open doors for Palestinians and provide opportunities for them, despite the political conflicts that may be ongoing.
I know some members may find the arguments being presented to be rather one-sided. I will quote a gentleman, who has been quoted earlier today, Bassem Eid, a Palestinian human rights activist, political analyst, and commentator on Palestinian domestic affairs. He wrote an article on the BDS movement and how it did not in any way quell the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Part of his article states:
Unfortunately, almost all of those so ostensibly dedicated to finding a solution have their own agendas, and these may not be to the advantage of either Palestinians or Israelis. A prime case in point is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. As a Palestinian dedicated to working for peace and reconciliation between my people and our Israeli neighbors, I do not believe that the BDS advocates are helping our cause. On the contrary, they are just creating more hatred, enmity, and polarization....
There is no connection between the tactics and objectives of the BDS movement and the on-the-ground realities of the Middle East. Israelis continue to come to the West Bank to do business, and most Palestinians continue to buy Israeli goods. Indeed, if you ask Palestinians what they want, they'll tell you they want jobs, secure education, and health.
He goes on to say:
BDS spokespeople justify calling for boycotts that will result in increased economic hardships for the Palestinians by asserting that Palestinians are willing to suffer such deprivations in order to achieve their freedom. It goes without saying that they themselves live in comfortable circumstances elsewhere in the world and will not suffer any such hardship. It would seem, in fact, that the BDS movement in its determination to oppose Israel is prepared to fight to the last drop of Palestinian blood. As a Palestinian who actually lives in east Jerusalem and hopes to build a better life for his family and his community, this is the kind of “pro-Palestinian activism” we could well do without. For our own sake, we need to reconcile with our Israeli neighbors, not reject and revile them.
Israel is among the freest and most democratic nations in the world. It is certainly the freest and most democratic nation in the Middle East.
That is why our Conservative caucus is putting forward this motion, a motion calling upon the House to support Israel by rejecting boycott, divestment, and sanctions and condemning organizations that promote this ludicrous movement.
As the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, Israel reflects the values and beliefs that we Canadians hold near and dear to our hearts, values like respect for a democratic role, tolerance of a multi-racial and multi-religious society, and respect for the rule of law. Israel's Arab citizens enjoy more rights than Arabs in any other country in the world. They serve in the Knesset, Israel's version of our Parliament, the judiciary, foreign service, and in all facets of Israeli society.
Sadly some Canadian universities—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. The time has expired for the member's remarks. We will now go to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Mount Royal.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would note that one of the things that is very interesting is that Arab women in Israel got the right to vote when Israel became independent in 1948 before Arab women were allowed to vote in any Arab state.
I know my hon. colleague did not get the chance to quite finish what he was going to say. Would he like to tell us what he would have said had he been able to wrap up?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have more questions like that, perhaps from my own family as opposed to being told to just be quiet.
I strongly encourage all members of the House to support this motion condemning the BDS movement. Supporting the motion will send a signal to Canadians and the world that we as a nation stand tall with our friend and ally, Israel, a nation of peace, prosperity, tolerance, and one that has a track record for sound human rights.
The member is right. Arabs, minorities, gays, Christian minorities, Yezidis, Maronites, all enjoy rights and privileges in Israel that are not enjoyed anywhere else in Middle Eastern countries. It is one of the reasons why I and my colleagues, and plenty of members across the way, support that country and the motion to denounce the BDS movement.
Bob Bratina Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure, as the mayor of Hamilton, to entertain a delegation of Israeli mayors. Some were Jewish and some were Muslim. I still have a commemorative plate from the mayor of Zemer, an Arabic-speaking Muslim, who came with a delegation, as I have said, of both Jewish and Muslim mayors to the city of Hamilton.
I want to reflect on my hon. colleague's remarks about the hardships that some people are willing to impose on other people. The discussions we had dealt with co-operation among those Israeli municipalities of both Jewish and Muslim origins in terms of the mayors and the populations. Would the member across the way comment on the sensitivity in Israel of outside oppressive acts which would tend to disrupt a society that is moving toward a peaceful existence?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, obviously it is a very difficult situation over there, and Israel has a role to play in the peace movement.
In my community, working with my friend Rabbi Daniel Friedman, the people from our local mosque and Christian churches in our area, there is desire among the interfaith group to work together for peace and move forward. I very much think the path the member's associates from Israel are taking is the way to go: working together, working toward peace and prosperity for their people, and without outside influence.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments we have heard against this motion was from those who claimed that somehow it would limit freedom of speech. Yet, in the House in 2006 and 2010, we had motions where the House strongly expressed a disagreement with things that were published, in one case in a newspaper and another case in a magazine.
We know there is a difference between limiting freedom of speech on the one hand, but on the other hand, the House expressing itself strongly on behalf of shared values.
Could the member share a bit about why the motion does not actually violate freedom of speech and really highlight that distinction between something that limits freedom of speech on the one hand but something else, such that this motion is, which is the House expressing itself in a collective way about the problems of the BDS movement?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the BDS movement is not an issue of free speech; it is an issue of promoting hate.
It is defining a very specific defined line between public discourse, which we are enjoying here in the House today, and what is promoted by the BDS. We have seen it in universities and we have seen it on the streets, where the BDS movement shuts down all discourse.
It claims to speak for freedom of speech, when in fact it is used to shout down people who wish to speak on it. It is used to prevent students at universities from speaking and expressing their own free will.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Mr. Speaker, as I am rising for the first time in this place since the last general election, I would like to begin by thanking my constituents in Calgary Midnapore who have given me the great honour of representing them for the seventh time in this place, previously in the constituency of Calgary Southeast, many of whose members I now represent in the new electoral district of Calgary Midnapore.
As well, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election and re-nomination to the august post of Deputy Speaker. I would also like to congratulate the member who preceded me, the member for Edmonton West, on his thoughtful remarks.
The motion now before the House states:
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.
One reason that today's motion is so important is that the BDS movement represents a new wave of anti-Semitism, the most pernicious form of hatred in the history of humanity.
Anti-Semitism is the most durable and pernicious form of hatred in human history. That is why we, as parliamentarians in this liberal democracy, are called upon to reject and condemn these manifestations of the new anti-Semitism.
We are all familiar with what is sometimes called the old anti-Semitism, traditional anti-Semitism, which was sadly expressed through much of European history against the Jewish people and led to pogroms and ultimately created the ideological backdrop for the Shoah, the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jewish people from the face of the earth.
Sadly, in recent decades and years, we have seen the development of a new form of anti-Semitism, which often takes the form of a kind of ideological fusion between movements of the extreme left and Islamist movements that seek, together, to obliterate the Jewish democratic State of Israel as a representation of what some call the “collective Jew”.
This is not the first time that our House has taken up these issues and, indeed, I am pleased to say that I played some small role in helping to bring together parliamentarians internationally to Ottawa through the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism. We hosted a gathering of parliamentarians from some 54 countries in 2010 to grapple with these questions.
Further to that, an all-party panel was created, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, which held exhaustive hearings across the country and here in Ottawa for the better part of two years, of which the member formerly of Lanark—Carleton and the former Liberal member Mario Silva were co-chairs. I would like to commend them for their work and recommend the report they submitted to the House in 2010 as an essential reference point for the reality of anti-Semitism and, in particular, its expression in the boycott, divestment, and sanction campaign.
One of the questions that this motion begs is this. What is anti-Semitism? The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism produced the Ottawa protocol, which I was pleased to endorse as a minister of citizenship, immigration, and multiculturalism on behalf of the Government of Canada. We were, parenthetically, the first and only executive branch of a government in the world to have done so.
That report adopted the working definition of anti-Semitism that has been proposed by bodies in the European Union that have studied the phenomenon of the new anti-Semitism.
This comes from the EUMC and has been adopted by our own parliamentarians in the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism. Let me quote in part its definition of anti-Semitism:
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:...
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour).
Applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation....
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The ICCA and the Canadian equivalent went on to say that: “Criticism of Israel is not [in and of itself] antisemitic, and saying so is wrong”.
Indeed, if criticism of Israel were anti-Semitic, then there would be anti-Semitism expressed in the Israeli Knesset every single day in that pluralistic democracy.
This I say to my friends in the NDP who have reservations about this motion. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is wrong, but singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium, let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction, is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.
Through this motion hopefully we can collectively say that singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium and denying its right to exist, or seeking its destruction, is discriminatory and hateful and is a virulent expression of the new anti-Semitism.
How do we see this manifested? Sadly, in many of our university campuses it is expressed in the so-called Israel apartheid week. The member for Edmonton West talked about people getting shouted down on campus if they dare to defend the democratic nature of that Jewish state.
I have travelled campuses across the country to encourage Jewish students and other allies and supporters of the democratic State of Israel, and I have been harassed physically, shouted down, and rendered unable to speak against Israel apartheid week at Canadian university campuses.
It is not just deplorable to find passionate, neo-Marxist undergrads, who perhaps do not know better, being whipped into a frenzy in their hatred for the Jewish state, but it is deplorable to see tenured professors at too many of our academic institutions encouraging and inciting this form of collective anti-Semitism through, in part, the academic boycott movement. That is why I am proud to say that, in the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism report of 2010, recommendation 9 reads:
The Inquiry Panel agrees with the conclusion of the UK Inquiry that “calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange.”
My time is drawing short, so let me say how important action is, not just symbols such as this condemnatory motion before us today. The previous government, of which I was proud to be a member, took the position that we must reflect a zero tolerance approach toward expressions of anti-Semitism, in part by removing public funding from organizations that give voice to such sentiments that support the BDS movement.
That is why, as minister of citizenship and immigration, I removed government funding from Palestine House in Mississauga and from the Canadian Arab Federation, which had been, under the previous government, receiving settlement funding to integrate newcomers but whose leading members had repeatedly given expression to the most vile anti-Semitic sentiments, including support for the BDS movement. I sincerely hope that the new government does not revert to funding such organizations. I think there has been some ambiguity about that.
Finally, for those who are interested in practical individual ways that they can demonstrate their solidarity for one of the great underdogs of history, the Jewish state, which rose out of the ashes of the Shoah as the final refuge and home of the Jewish people, whenever we see a boycott against Israeli products, we should launch our own “buycott”. That is what I have done.
Le Marcheur is a shop on Saint-Denis, in Montreal. That is where Amir Khadir started a boycott. I go to that store to buy my shoes. When there was a boycott against Sodastream, that was the first time I bought Sodastream products. One way for average Canadians to reject this campaign of hate is to do the opposite and support Israeli producers in their efforts to create a prosperous, free, and democratic society.
Opposition Motion—IsraelBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments from the member. There is an issue on which I would ask for his thoughts. The member for Mount Royal spent a great deal of effort trying to explain to the House how it is that Israel as a nation is actually being singled out by the BDS movement. That, in itself, speaks volumes in terms of the whole anti-Semitic approach that many actually have with regard to the BDS movement.
My question to the member is this. Can he provide his thoughts or comment on how Israel is the country being singled out by this movement and how that, ultimately, promotes racial issues in this whole debate?