Debates of Feb. 18th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Israel

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the entire government, I will begin by saying that the government will be supporting the motion by the official opposition. We will support it because we agree with the substance of it, although we do have some reservations about its form and about the Conservative Party's real intentions.

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.

Let us review the terms of the motion, “That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations...”. I will stop there.

We agree that Canada and Israel share a friendship and economic and diplomatic relations. Who in this House does not agree with that? Is Israel not more than just an ally, but also a steadfast friend to Canada? How could we not admire a country that is so small in size, but mighty when it comes to courage, determination, resourcefulness, and solidarity? How can we not hope for this democracy to spread in a region that is grappling with all sorts of authoritarian abuses? The Jewish people were persecuted for thousands of years. How can we not be happy for them, knowing they have found a place where they will always feel at home?

We as Canadians have every reason to show solidarity with Israel, first because we bear the burden of history. Canada turned Jews back at its borders; remember “none is too many”. Canada excluded Jews from decision-making bodies and universities and, sometimes openly and sometimes in a covert manner, discriminated against them in many ways.

Let us look at where Jews in Canada stand today. How can we help but congratulate ourselves for having welcomed what has in fact become the fourth largest Jewish community in the world after the United States, Israel, and France?

Moved by the music of Leonard Cohen, amazed by the architecture of Moshe Safdie, enchanted by the stories of Mordecai Richler, convinced by the judgments of Jean Beetz, or inspired by the dedication of Irwin Cotler, we can measure the momentum of the Jewish presence in every sphere of our national life.

Since we owe so much to our Jewish communities, should we not show solidarity with Israel, a country that is under intense military pressure and the constant threat of terrorism, and needs our support? In any case, it is in our interest to do so. We would agree, for example, that it is in our interest to connect with the second largest research and development investor among OECD countries.

Let us continue to look at the motion before us: “...the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement...”.

There again, we completely agree. Rejecting the boycott of Israel is in keeping with Canadian tradition.

Canada has been firm in its opposition to the Arab boycott of Israel since it began in the 1970s.

Opposition to the BDS movement was firmly expressed by the Liberal leader and the Liberal Party before and during the election campaign. During the campaign, The Canadian Jewish News ran an election ad signed by the Liberal candidate in Papineau, our Prime Minister, and the candidates in Mount Royal, Outremont, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Saint-Laurent, which read as follows:

The Liberal Party of Canada believes that:

Canada has and must always be a friend of Israel

We must fight anti-Semitism in all of its forms

We must oppose Boycott, Divest, and Sanction campaigns in our communities and continue to speak out forcefully against them

The Liberals do not support this boycott movement because we do not believe it is conducive to achieving peace in the Middle East. We must never give up on seeking peace, and we must make no mistakes in our solutions for achieving it.

The status quo is untenable for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The demographic trends will make the situation in the occupied territories increasingly unsustainable.

We must find a peaceful solution that, through negotiation, will lead to the advent of two states: Israel and Palestine, living side by side in security and peace. Boycotting Israel will not lead to this much-desired just peace.

Peace emerges from building bridges between peoples, not from rejection. Peace emerges from more interaction, more collaboration, not the opposite. A boycott creates victims. Boycotting businesses thrusts workers—Israelis, Jews or Arabs; Palestinians, Christians or Muslims—into unemployment.

Stemming the flow of investment can only create more misery and despair. A poignant example is that a world-renowned Israeli company, SodaStream, was forced through threats of a BDS boycott to close its factory located in the West Bank. This resulted in the loss of hundreds of well-paying jobs for Palestinians. This negative effect on the Palestinian people in this economy is wrong. In itself, it provides nothing good for peace.

Canada believes that supporting the economic prospects of the Palestinian people is a vital goal for ensuring their dignity. It has the valuable side effect of creating stability and security in the region. In this spirit, Canada funds a host of projects to better the livelihood of the Palestinians. Working toward that goal is the sort of activity that will advance prospects for the peace process. The BDS movement, however, is exciting already high tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, to their detriment.

The world will win nothing from boycotting Israel but depriving itself of its talents and inventiveness. It would be unjust and counterproductive to deprive our students of the contribution of Israeli professors, or deprive researchers of the collaboration of their Israeli colleagues, or deprive businesses of their partnerships with Israeli companies. That would not contribute in any way to peace, but would create a lot of injustice and be an affront to free speech.

It is wrong and counterproductive to pressure musicians, writers, poets, and artists not to perform in or visit Israel. Instead of dialogue and understanding, we would only be spreading distrust and intimidation.

There are disturbing reports of Jewish students feeling unsafe at Canadian universities. That is unacceptable.

We do not need fewer ties between Canada and Israel; on the contrary, we need more. We must implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement in order to reduce technical barriers, enhance co-operation, increase transparency in regulatory matters, and reduce transaction costs for businesses. That is the way forward.

We must oppose anything that stands in the way of stronger ties between Canada and Israel.

The one-sided nature of the BDS movement is in itself a problem for the search for peace and justice. It targets Israel alone. It calls on Israel alone to act. Once again, instead of a recipe for achievement of a lasting peace settlement, the BDS movement in fact creates a form of collective punishment at the expense of both Israelis and Palestinians.

As Canada considers the Middle East peace process and seeks opportunities to move to pursue our role in the eventual resolution that meets the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, we should not be asking ourselves how we punish one people. Instead, we should ask ourselves how we can re-motivate these two peoples to get into a dialogue again, how we can start a positive process with the Israelis and Palestinians to relaunch a peace process.

Now let us finish our review of the motion before us:

...(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.

This rhetoric elicits mistrust and it comes from the Conservatives, who in recent years have constantly tried to transform support for Israel into a partisan issue in Canada. Yes, some supporters of the boycott have bad intentions, do not want peace, and are working against Israel.

Their real goal is not to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but to delegitimize and single out Israel.

In this movement there are certainly some hate-filled extremists, racists and anti-Semites as well. We must strongly condemn those individuals.

However, it cannot be denied that many of the boycott supporters are mistaken in good faith. Many organizations and individuals in Canada and abroad support the BDS movement out of the belief that it will somehow accelerate the peace process and be a non-violent initiative that leads to a lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their goal ultimately is the same as ours: a two-state solution with a secure, stable, and democratic Israel, living side-by-side with a secure, stable, and democratic Palestinian state. However, they are mistaken in the way this goal may be achieved.

We will not convince the people acting in good faith that they are mistaken by hitting them over the head and condemning them at every turn. Intimidation, name-calling, and accusations will not lead to constructive dialogue with them. We must talk to them with respect and explain why boycotting Israel is a false solution.

We have had this debate and many others, and we will continue to have it, in Canada and elsewhere, with people we respect, who in some cases are themselves Jewish. Dialogue and honest and firm debate, not ostracism and intimidation, will rally support for truly promising solutions.

Canada and Israel are strong, vibrant democracies where legitimate criticism within legitimate discourse is expected and accepted as the way to build consensus.

Do our Conservative colleagues have any interest in this dialogue or in seeking consensus? When they were in power, they did quite the opposite. They made threats, hurled invective, and systematically painted people with the same brush for crass partisan purposes. They made support for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community a partisan issue. That did not work for them, but they do not seem to have learned anything from it.

They have come back to us today with this motion, and we are well aware that its purpose is to create division. There are no winners in this type of game.

We would like to tell our colleagues and Conservative friends that many Canadians have had enough of their simplistic Manichaeism and hyperpartisanship. That is one of the main reasons why Canadians relegated them to the opposition benches. It is up to the Conservatives to learn from that. If they do not, they will remain in the opposition.

I would like to close by pointing out what really matters: Canada's lasting friendship with Israel; our constructive, long-term partnership with the Palestinian Authority; the pursuit of justice for all, including the Palestinian people; the pursuit of security for all, including the Jewish people; and the creation of two states that can live side by side in harmony.

Those are the goals that we should be tirelessly and resolutely pursuing, using insight and common sense. We need to work together with all people of good faith to find peaceful and fair solutions that do not involve the boycott of Israel.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister's and the government's decision to support today's motion is certainly a step in the right direction and is in keeping with Canada's tradition of fighting against anti-Semitism. Canada is a signatory to the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism.

I would also like to quote Irwin Cotler, a former colleague of the minister, who said:

Yet, Canada can and must be a world leader in heeding the call of the recent UN forum [on anti-Semitism] to renew, reaffirm, and reinvigorate efforts to combat anti-Semitism, and to promote mutual respect, tolerance and understanding.

My question for the minister is simple. How does our Minister of Foreign Affairs plan to actively combat the pernicious new forms of anti-Semitism that are attacking the very existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel? How will he prevent people from being misled by entities that have bad intentions?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am glad that he quoted Irwin Cotler, who, as justice minister, launched a number of programs that were effective in combatting racism and developing tolerance, openness, and acceptance in Canada. That is the direction we must take.

However, it is important to avoid painting everyone with the same brush, to avoid driving wedges all over the place with indiscriminate condemnations. One thing we can do is identify anti-Semitism and separate this anti-Semitism from legitimate discourse in which we are looking to find solutions and we can have good-natured disagreements.

The Conservatives did not do that when they were in power. Their prime minister did everything he could to divide Canadians on issues that should have brought them together in order to isolate those who are truly spreading hate.

The current Prime Minister's approach will bring Canadians together to deal with threats to humankind.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his speech, which raised a number of interesting points. I agree with him about the perils of the divisive politics we witnessed under the Conservative government, politics that benefit nobody.

Having said that, I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks it is up to Parliament and the government to tell Canadians what issues they can debate and what ideas and opinions they are allowed to have. One organization that has endorsed the BDS campaign is the Ontario branch of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Does the Minister condemn the members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees? Does he go beyond acknowledging that they do not share his opinion and actually condemn them?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question.

Sooner or later, we have to make choices. We did not draft this motion, but we have to vote yea or nay. The government that I represent here chose to vote in favour of it even though we would have written it differently. I explained why in my speech. The movement is misguided.

I agree with the member that most of the people in the movement are acting in good faith, including many of the organizations, but they are misguided. We therefore support this motion, but we wish to make it clear that we are in no way seeking to limit freedom of expression in Canada or to encourage any kind of bullying one way or the other. We will certainly be very vigilant when it comes to combatting hate speech.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that while I agree with the motion's rejection of the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement, the question that I have for the minister is around the particular wording of “condemn any and all attempts”. 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 ask the minister, how can we promote peace at the same time we are looking to engage in discourse with those who are for and against the movement?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. It is a very valid question, because the Conservatives' aim is to be sure that anyone in the House who votes against them will be considered a dissident. It is what they are trained to do, as we know.

The government has made this call that, all in all, it is better to send a message that the boycott of Israel is a bad solution. However, of course, we will be there to fight any attempt to divide Canadians and to put Canadians of good faith in the same bag with people who are animated by hatred and racism.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about divisions being created and saying that the Conservative motion today is creating division. It is not creating division. We are responding to a group that is creating division. That is what leadership is: it seeks to unify when others seek to divide.

As we move forward, I think we need to make sure that what we do in the House matters, and that when we stand up, we stand strong and firm. We welcome the support of the Liberals wholeheartedly, and we thank them for that support, but we ask them to tone down the rhetoric. When will they do that?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague should hold up a mirror and ask himself that question too, because that is what he is doing. He is creating a lot of rhetoric to divide people, which is what he just said.

There is a problem that we need to solve. The problem is that peace does not exist in the Middle East, that the status quo is not viable or sustainable for Jews, Iraqis, Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, or anyone.

We need to find solutions. Some Canadians, in good faith, believe that a boycott of Israel would be a solution. We do not believe that is a valid solution for the reasons I mentioned, but we will not insult them. We are not out to tell all of them that they are racist and so on, or that they are not Canadian.

There are racists, there are people who are animated by bad faith, and we need to condemn them. However, the first way to fight racism is to avoid amalgamation, which is exactly what the Conservatives are always doing. It is one of the reasons they are in opposition today.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, a great debate in the House would have been, how do we find peace in Israel and Palestine, how we do the rebuilding in Gaza, and how do meet the UN resolution? However, that is not what we are debating. What we are debating today is a push by the Conservatives to try to divide Canadians and use Parliament to deny and condemn individuals for using their right to dissent.

I ask my hon. colleague, coming from the party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, why he would stand with the Conservatives and condemn individuals. I ask him that because it is what the member is voting for. He can say whatever he wants to attack the Conservatives, but he is taking the same position he took on Bill C-51, because the Liberals are afraid of the Conservative rhetorical machine, and they will not stand up for the individual rights of Canadians to dissent.

The issue here is not about defining Israel and Palestine, which is a good debate that we should have, and we need that debate within the House. The question that has been put here is about the condemnation of individuals and organizations, including church people, teachers, and all manner of people. Whether the member agrees with them or not, it is the role of parliamentarians to stand up for individual rights.

I am absolutely shocked that the member would stand with the Conservatives on a motion that specifically calls upon us to condemn individuals for their right to dissent.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has good will, but in the way he phrased his question, I am afraid it is he who is playing a game with the Conservatives.

I have been very clear in my speech that if we support the motion, it is because we want to send the message that a boycott of Israel is not a valid solution. However, I will always respect free speech. I will respect the vote of my colleague, whatever it is. I will not tell him, because he votes differently from me, that he is bad man or that I cannot shake his hand or be proud to be his colleague.

Unfortunately, we all know that is not the game the Conservatives want to play. They want to create a situation where the people who are not with them are evil. It is as simplistic as that. It is like a bad, c-rated western they are playing.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have a very bizarre motion in front of us today, to say the least. The first part rejects BDS, and I will come back to that afterwards. Then there is the second part that calls upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups, or individuals who promote the BDS movement both here at home and abroad.

I have a serious problem with that. It is not the role of Parliament to limit topics Canadians are allowed to debate, or to condemn opinions. The NDP does not support BDS. We think it detracts from the work of achieving real progress in the region.

Let me read a quote of Jack Layton's from 2010. He said, “...our party has never, nor would we ever deny that Israel not only has a right to exist but a right to exist in secure borders in a safe context”. Similarly with the BDS proposal, this is not party policy, and we do not support it.

It would be better to work positively with partners for peace on both sides to find a lasting solution for all. As I said, the motion is not about BDS; it is about the politics of division and freedom of opinion.

I would like to read the second part of the motion.

...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.

We are not talking about attempts by extremists. As I just said a moment ago, I firmly believe that it is not the role of Parliament to prohibit anyone from debating ideas or having an opinion. Parliament's role is actually the exact opposite of that. Its role is to defend the freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of all Canadians, whether we agree with them or not.

If we were debating a motion here today that asked me to condemn any group that opposes a woman's right to choose, I would not support it, because it is not our role to condemn people for their opinion. Has it become a crime in Canada to have an opinion? The Conservatives would probably like that, but I do not believe that Parliament should head in that direction.

At the same time, I am not terribly surprised that the Conservatives have brought forward such an idea and such a motion. We have seen similar things from them in the past. Just think of Bill C-51. It is interesting to see that the Liberals, who are going to support this motion, also voted in favour of Bill C-51, which limits our freedom of expression.

The Conservatives are well known for their use of gag orders. Any time the opposition disagreed with their position, they would impose a gag order. They muzzled bureaucrats and scientists, and limited access to information. They kept journalists from doing their job properly, even though that is one of the tenets of our democracy.

They harassed and intimidated a range of civil society organizations, particularly through the Canada Revenue Agency, organizations whose biggest crime was not to agree with the government's policies. This reminds me of George Orwell. What is this world coming to when here in Canada we are attacking the fundamental right to disagree?

Ironically, the Conservatives are the ones who introduced private members' bills to undermine our protections from the hate speech that often targets cultural minorities and those with different sexual orientation. It is rather odd.

This motion is typical of the Conservatives in that it seeks to muzzle those with whom they disagree. Personally, I reject that. In the words of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

There are some who think this is a good idea, but I do not necessarily agree. I think we must focus our efforts on working with partners for peace, from both sides, to come up with a just, lasting, and equitable solution for the well-being of everyone. However, there are people who have other ideas. There are some in Israel and some in my own riding. They know we disagree, but we can talk about it. Discussion and dialogue are the road to moving forward with these thorny issues.

It is very sad to see the Conservatives playing politics with such an issue. I do agree with what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. They are obviously playing the politics of division again, and that type of policy does not help anyone. It does not help our friends. They have done that so often.

The result of the approach of the Conservatives in the Middle East, in particular, for years is that Canada lost its reputation and it was damaged. Then Canada lost its ability to act as an honest broker and to help our friends, including Israel. Canada has no power and no influence in the region because it has lost its credibility, with too many actors who want to be agents for change and peace and have to be part of the process. The Conservatives have utterly have cut off our bridges.

Yes, we must play a positive role, but we will not play a positive role if we adopt politics of interdiction and shutting up debate. Let me give a quote that I quite like and that I endorse:

I am a Canadian...free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.

This was said by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, and I think he would be very sad.

If he could see what the Conservatives are trying to do here today, he would turn in his grave.

Instead of creating even more division, let us work together on finding positive solutions to this rather difficult situation and let us stand up to defend our values, our rights, and our freedoms, including the right to free speech and the right to have an opinion. It is for that last right that I will say no to this motion.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the BDS movement inflames rather than enlightens. Forbes magazine reports that BDS sanctions harm Palestine disproportionately due to the trade surplus that flows from Israel to Palestine.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. How does supporting BDS effectively help Palestinians?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear, as I said in my speech, no, the NDP does not support the BDS movement.

We believe that there are far more effective ways to help Israel and the Palestinians. However, just because we do not support it does not mean that the House can condemn people who peacefully support another idea. We will find a solution through informed debate and engagement, not by condemning people or disrupting dialogue.

Therefore, we cannot support such a motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, who spoke about a former prime minister rolling over in his grave. The NDP members often change their tune when it comes to BDS Québec.

Today, thanks to the Internet, we can check out what is posted on websites, for example the BDS Québec site, where we learned something rather startling. We learned that the NDP indirectly supports BDS, but today the member is telling us otherwise. How can that be? On September 22, BDS Québec invited its members to a major solidarity rally for the movement. Where was it held? In front of the campaign office of the member for Outremont.

When did the NDP change its position and decide to no longer support the BDS movement?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am finding it very hard to understand what my colleague is trying to say. From my understanding, people held a protest in front of a member's office. Does that mean that the member supported the cause?

In my limited experience, when I have seen people protesting in front of a member's office, it was generally because the member did not support their cause. There is always going to be someone who will claim the NDP said this or that. I believe I quoted Jack Layton.

First, I want to reiterate that I find my colleague's argument rather bizarre. Second, that is not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is whether Canadians will be allowed to freely express their opinions whether we agree with them or not. That is fundamental. That is part of our fundamental rights.

If we do this, we will truly be heading in the wrong direction.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about this. What is very disturbing is that the Liberals and Conservatives agree that as parliamentarians we should denounce students, intervene in universities, and attack individuals over an issue about the Middle East, as opposed to discussing where we need to be on the Middle East.

Considering how close the Liberals and Conservatives are on this issue and given the work the member has done on the international front, what steps should we take in this Parliament to talk about bringing peace for our friends in Israel, to ensure secure borders, to ensure the two-state solution for dealing with the tragedy of Gaza, and to ensure the importance of Canada on the international stage, which has been abdicated by the Conservatives and squandered by the Liberals? What is my hon. colleague's vision about how we bring these two peoples together and how Canada can play a role internationally in bringing peace between Israel and Palestine?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to first say that, in my experience, lack of respect for another party's, country's, or people's positions, lack of dialogue and lack of listening, is the surest path to conflict. That is why this motion is not working toward peace. It is doing the contrary.

New Democrats want two peaceful states, where people can go about their lives without worrying all the time. For that, we must engage in dialogue. Canada must become a bridge maker and also promote economic and social development for all.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I respect her vote, but I would also like her to respect mine. I am not talking about her so much as about her colleague from Timmins—James Bay, who wants to lump the Conservatives and the Liberals together on this issue.

Members will vote yes or no. I will respect the member whichever way she votes. I hope that she will never associate me with what was just said by the member for Lac-Mégantic, who is trying to tarnish the reputation of the NDP leader because a protest was held in his riding.

This is the sort of thing that the Conservatives have been doing for the past 10 years. It relegated them to the opposition. I can assure my colleague that that is not at all the government's intention. The government is proposing that members vote in favour of this motion simply because we want to send the message that boycotting Israel is not a constructive solution to the problem. However, we will stand up for the right to free speech for all people of good faith and speak out against any racist comments that are made. I can assure her that we will not paint everyone with the same brush.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that we completely agree regarding what the Conservatives have been doing and what we have heard so far in the House. There is no problem there.

What bothers me, and I am not painting everyone with the same brush, is that the Liberals voted with the Conservatives on Bill C-51, which limits our freedom of speech. It bothers me that, despite what the minister is saying in the House, he is prepared to support a motion actually saying that we will condemn any attempts by organizations or groups to promote the BDS movement. I am sorry, but that goes against what the minister himself said in his speech.

He is saying one thing and doing another.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleagues from Quebec know, I am constantly working on and trying to improve my French.

I want to pick up on a point that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable brought up. As I read the BDS website, in translation it speaks very clearly to the fact that this meeting was a show or sign of solidarity in front of the member for Outremont. My hon. colleague said that this was, in fact, just a gathering, but the website clearly states that it was a show of solidarity in front of the member for Outremont.

I want to ask the member whether her recollection of what happened is unclear and whether, in fact, her party was in solidarity with this group.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, does the website say with whom it was a show of solidarity? I think that is a very pertinent question. The NDP policy has been very clear. Through the years, it has not changed. The hon. member should be careful about what he is reading on some websites. Just saying it is a show of solidarity is not sufficient.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.

Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan debate. However, I must note from the start that our official opposition is the only party that has not had a single member, or would-be member, who supported, or now supports, BDS. Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the third party have spoken forcefully against BDS. I look forward to the eventual vote on the motion to see whether we can, in this House, make the vote on this motion unanimous.

The boycott, divest, sanctions campaigners claim it to be a human rights movement. In fact, it is nothing more than a thinly disguised, multi-dimensional hate campaign.

On one hand, it targets the economy and citizens of the only democracy in the Middle East. It seeks to delegitimize and demonize Israel with hateful, hypocritical anti-Semitic attacks.

On the other hand, on Canadian university and college campuses, the BDS movement focuses the new anti-Semitism on pro-Israel and Jewish students, disrupting with hate what should be a happy, uplifting student experience.

The global campaign, funded and supported by extremist elements against Israel, has worked its ugly agenda on any number of major campuses: Concordia, McGill, McMaster, Ryerson, the University of Toronto, the University of Waterloo, and York University, which sits just on the edge of my constituency of Thornhill. It is very often championed by student unions controlled by the Canadian Federation of Students. Very often, all too often, student referenda involve intimidation to discourage opponents of BDS from voting and a variety of forms of vote-rigging.

In just a few days, now, McGill students are being asked again, for the third time in two years, to support BDS.

However, there is good news to report. One hopes that McGill students will follow the lead of University of Waterloo counterparts, who rejected a referendum proposal to sever ties between that university and Israeli academic institutions. A second-year student, Ilia Sucholutsky, was quoted as saying afterward, “If anti-Israel activists at UW genuinely cared about peace, they would have proposed initiatives that bring the two sides together in dialogue, reconciliation, and cooperation.” Mr. Sucholutsky continued, “Instead, they chose to pursue a one-sided, punitive, and discriminatory effort to isolate Israeli academics.” He concluded, “UW students clearly saw through this charade.”

While we commend the insight and the courage of some student bodies to resist the BDS bullies, I regret that this House, in 2016, must again recognize the pervasive existence of a new anti-Semitism here in Canada, and around the world.

Despite the best efforts of generations of parliamentarians and private citizens, and the vigilance and determination of human rights organizations, such as B'nai Brith Canada and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal, anti-Semitism, humankind's original hatred, remains alive and hatefully well in Canada, and abroad. B'nai Brith's most recent annual audit of anti-Semitism incidents released last year revealed the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents ever recorded by B'nai Brith and the League for Human Rights. At 1,627 incidents across Canada, the year saw a 28% increase over 2013.

Canadians can remember brief periods in recent decades when we might have thought anti-Semitism was a hateful phenomenon of the past. That was wishful thinking perhaps. However, then came the resurgence of ancient and hybrid hate.

In my riding of Thornhill, there has anti-Semitic vandalism and graffiti, such as swastikas over the Star of David. In Montreal, there have been firebombings of Jewish businesses and desecration of Jewish cemeteries. Anti-Israel rallies during periods of Mideast tension deteriorated into openly anti-Semitic events in Calgary, Mississauga, and Toronto.

Israeli Apartheid Week and the boycott, divest, sanction movement represent hybrid anti-Semitism. Proponents, propagandists for IAW or BDS, say they are not anti-Semites, that they have nothing against the Jewish people, but are merely against Israel the Zionist state.

“Zionist” has become the hateful code word for “Jew”.

Now we see a new variation of BDS. The European Union has imposed guidelines for labels of Israeli products made in the West Bank or Golan Heights, regulations that are being widely viewed as soft sanctions. The EU denies the origin labels represent a boycott of Israel, but in an increasingly anti-Israel Europe, labelling could lead to broader damage to Israel's economy.

However, the policy does seem to legitimize the boycott. For example, just a couple of months ago, a high-end Berlin department store removed all Israeli wines from its shelf, not just those from the Golan Heights, but from Israel itself. When the Jerusalem Post newspaper reported that the department store had been stolen by the Nazis before World War II the store put the wines back on the shelves.

The EU justifies the soft boycott on the argument that the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlement occupations, and that the origin labels will speed resolution of the two-state outcome that we all in the House wish to see. However, the EU has no plans to label Turkish products from illegally occupied North Cyprus, or to sanction Morocco for its illegal seizure of Western Sahara.

The good news from across the Atlantic is the British government's new legislation that bans city councils, publicly funded institutions, and some university student unions from boycotting Israeli products, or products from Israeli settlements. Those public institutions that continue to impose boycott restrictions on goods and services and products from Israel, or against British companies that deal in these products, will face what are called “severe penalties”.

At the same time, the bad news, this time from the United States, is that the State Department and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency now intend to sanction products from Israeli settlements. A state department spokesman said the move could be perceived as a step toward a wider boycott. His boss later said the U.S. denies that the origin discrimination represents a form of boycott. Either way, the State Department action is in strong contrast to statements opposing labelling from Congress, and to anti-boycott legislation passed by states, such as California, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana.

After consultation with my Thornhill constituents and a number of human rights proponents, I considered putting a private member's bill before the House that would condemn BDS. Such a bill would compel the administrations of publicly funded institutions across Canada to take firm actions against all forms of hate speech. It would also encourage development, through the appropriate committees of our Parliament, of legislation that would bar publicly funded higher learning institutions from boycotting Israeli goods and services, in line with the Government of Canada's own trade agreements with the State of Israel.

I am, unfortunately, rather distant on the list of precedence for private members' bills, but I would be delighted if a colleague from either side of the House were to pre-empt my proposed legislation with a private member's bill of their own. As I said in opening these remarks, today's debate should not divide on partisan lines. I hope that when the motion comes to a vote the House speaks with one unanimous voice against boycott, divest, sanctions.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if, by definition, anyone who is proposing the boycott of Israel is animated by hate?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I caught the question. Could I ask my hon. colleague to just finish the sentence?