Debates of Feb. 18th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Israel

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, as our own Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism and as the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism have all said, criticism of individual policies of any Israeli government does not and cannot constitute anti-Semitism. However, when a double standard is applied, when such criticism is solely and singularly focused on the only Jewish state in the world, when such organizations are obsessed with condemning, de-legitimizing, and marginalizing the only Jewish country in the world and when they do not direct similar criticism about policies to other governments with manifestly worse human rights records, there we see the clear evidence of a double standard. There we see the anti-Semitism of treating Israel as a collective Jew.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the BDS or Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is a citizens' response that is non-violent and not anti-Semitic. It does not target Jews for being Jewish. It targets questionable policies of the State of Israel. For example, this could include all the successive governments' policies on the Palestinian people: occupation, colonization, blockade.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes boycotting as a democratic right of people who want to criticize a state's policies in a non-violent way. Disagreeing with the colonization of Palestine, for example, is not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist. It is a legitimate political opinion that one can agree with or not.

There has been a lot of talk about demonization. Are we not in the process of demonizing anyone who does not think the way we do?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, to say that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is not anti-Zionist is absolute nonsense. This movement believes that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, with a Jewish identity.

I find it appalling that a provincial ally of the Bloc Québécois, Amir Khadir, the co-president of Québec solidaire, a party that unfortunately has some NDPers among its members, organizes a protest every weekend in front of Le Marcheur, a shoe store on Saint-Denis Street, because the store sells a product made in Israel.

By the way, MNA Amir Khadir's constituent is a Jew, a Canadian Jew. I find it appalling that a Canadian politician is organizing the boycott of a store in his own riding because it sells goods made by Jewish men and women. If that is not anti-Semitic, I do not know the meaning of the term.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak on this important motion.

I wish to announce at the outset that I will be speaking in opposition to the motion. I do so for a fundamental reason, because it proposes to have the government place limits upon what topics Canadians can debate, which I believe strongly is absolutely not an appropriate role for government. Let me examine the text of the motion to demonstrate why I believe that is so.

After the preamble's language talking about the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, it then asks the government to do the following: “to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

Let me state at the outset that I am not speaking about the BDS or Israel when I speak against the motion. I have no quarrel with the preamble's language about the positive relations between Canada and Israel. I embrace that. This is not a question of foreign policy before us in the motion. It calls upon us to condemn individuals who promote a certain position.

Let me be clear on the BDS movement from the outset. The New Democratic Party does not support BDS. The New Democratic Party does not support policies on boycotting, sanctioning, or divesting from Israel. As long ago as 2010, the late Jack Layton said:

...our party has never, nor would we ever deny that Israel has not only the right to exist...in secure borders in a safe context and similar with this BDS proposal (the Israel boycott) this is not party policy and we don't support it.

We do not think it is the job of Parliament to tell Canadians how they should express themselves. They have the right in a free and democratic society to make their own choices and to exercise free expression.

Everyone knows what the Conservatives are trying to do in tabling this motion. They are trying to exploit genuine foreign policy differences among Canadians and use wedge politics in the most egregious way possible.

One can strongly oppose the BDS movement, but to say that our government should apparently take measures to condemn Canadians who speak out against a particular policy is something entirely different. I am angry and saddened by what the Conservatives are doing here. They are exploiting a highly charged foreign policy issue to divide Canadians for partisan purpose. It saddens me and it angers me.

We have spent the entire day dealing with this opposition motion. Would it not be better if we worked together to fight racism and anti-Semitism and intimidation on our university campuses? That is what we should be worrying about. We should be providing positive solutions to these legitimate problems rather than talking about ways to divide Canadians in the House.

Today I had the honour to join my friend Mr. Irwin Cotler, a former member of Parliament for Mount Royal, as we started an all-party Raoul Wallenberg parliamentary caucus to deal with, among other things, the elimination of racism and anti-Semitism. This caucus is in honour of a wonderful humanitarian, Raoul Wallenberg, who disappeared after the Second World War. The group is named in his honour. I am so proud to represent the New Democratic Party in this organization.

That is positive action. That is dealing with real problems as Canadians work together across party lines to do what Mr. Cotler taught us we can do so well in Parliament, rather than debating a motion that would condemn free speech. Let me explain why I say that.

I looked at a couple of dictionary definitions when I saw this motion. I looked at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and in it the word “condemn” means to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil, usually after weighing evidence and without reservation.

What does the word “promote” mean, because we cannot forget we are condemning people who promote a certain position? The Cambridge University Dictionary says that the word “promote” means to encourage people to support something, that is, to promote.

I am a lawyer. I am proud as a Canadian of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2 of which guarantees all of us the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression subject only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrated as prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is what we should be talking about, the violation of those core charter principles in this motion, and I say it is simply wrong.

What Canadians have done is passed sensitively balanced laws to address hate speech and other restrictions on free speech in our country, which are set out in the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act, to deal with the propagation of hate. We have set those delicate balances. Our courts have addressed them in cases like Keegstra and Zundel, and we have come up with jurisprudence that Canadians should be proud of. In some cases they have struck down sections of the Criminal Code, and in others they have sustained them. We have the balance right.

Freedom of expression is a sacred value. After the Second World War, the nations of the world came together in the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. Article 19 includes these powerful words, to which Canada has subscribed:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Of course there are restrictions on free speech in certain circumstances, such as liable, slander, trade secrets, and privacy. We know they exist in every democratic country. These are very limited in the United States because of its first amendment. In 1969, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the “clear and present danger” test that used to exist no longer applied to one's right even to speak openly of violent acts and revolution, unless there were an imminent danger of lawless action. Therefore, the Americans have the highwater mark in the world. They do not have the kind of balanced hate speech provisions that we have come up with as Canadians.

In 1966, Professor Maxwell Cohen of McGill University submitted a report to this House on hate propaganda, which was a very sensitively balanced report, long before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It recommended legislation to combat hate propaganda, and it did so in a balanced way.

There are four sections of the Criminal Code that address the issue of hate propaganda, if I can call it that. The word “promoting” is used in section 318 of the Criminal Code, just as it is in the Conservative motion, for example, with respect to the public incitement of genocide of an identifiable group. Advocating or promoting that is a crime in Canada. It would have never passed muster in the United States, but Canada did it differently. We came up with a balanced solution to these problems. There are other sections as well that came up in both the Keegstra and Zundel cases.

As we all know, Keegstra was a teacher in Alberta who promoted vicious anti-Semitism in his classroom. Essentially, the more anti-Semitic propaganda the students could spout back at the teacher the better grades they got. He was convicted, and that conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as a legitimate restriction on free speech. I am proud of that decision.

In the Zundel case, Zundel was accused of spreading false news. There is a section of the Criminal Code that has since been held unconstitutional as a result of that case.

My point with respect to all of this is a simple one, that Canadians have chosen to carefully and delicately balance free speech issues. We have a charter that puts meat on the bones and backstops the defences available in the Criminal Code.

However, this motion would simply have us baldly say that we as parliamentarians should “condemn” those Canadians who promote views with which we disagree. I cannot support such a proposition. If we want to do these things, we have every right as parliamentarians to amend our Criminal Code, balance it carefully with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and come up with laws that work for Canada. However, to baldly say that we should simply “condemn”, to use the words of the motion, those views with which we disagree, and to think that we should be thinking along those lines, is something that all parliamentarians should look at with horror.

John Milton, back in the 17th century, made an impassioned plea for freedom of expression, even tolerance of falsehood. He said this: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”

Later, in the 19th century, John Stewart Mill argued that “there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.”

However, we are prepared to pass a motion on a controversial subject to condemn people for promoting speech with which we disagree. That, to me, is simply un-Canadian and contrary to the careful balancing that we have done over time in this place. We should be proud of our legacy and we should not depart from it for a moment, unless we are prepared to put into question the delicate balances that we have created after the Cohen report, after the hate propaganda laws, and after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Only then can we talk about whether we want to curb free expression further in this country.

We have, as I mentioned, not only the Criminal Code but also human rights tribunals. The Canadian Human Rights Act used to have a section in it, section 13, the “hate speech provision”, as it was called. It was criticized by free speech advocates. Maybe it went too far, maybe it did not, but it was repealed. A Conservative member from Alberta in 2013 brought a motion forward. The House passed a law and basically repealed this particular section 13. It dealt with the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet. Parliamentarians looked at it and said it went too far and did not strike a balance, and they struck it down. The Conservatives are all in favour of free speech until they are not, and that is what is troubling about this particular measure.

I was in the last Parliament, thinking about how the Conservatives went after birdwatchers. They were concerned that these charities were doing too much advocacy work of the kind that did not suit the agenda of the Conservatives. To the great consternation of many Canadians who came to my door, the Conservatives continued to do that. We are looking to the new government. There is a promise that it is going to change that. The Conservatives did not like advocacy of that kind. It was against their particular proposals, insofar as those activities maybe took issue with some of the Conservative environmental agenda, or the like.

They have been severely criticized. In fact, there is a study before the Information Commissioner of Canada right now about muzzling scientists and preventing their free speech because they might be using research and going to the media, which they should not be doing. That was the kind of free speech that the Conservatives did not like. Today, the Conservatives are condemning another kind of free speech.

Another Conservative, whom I have always admired, was John Diefenbaker who gave Canada the Bill of Rights. In 1960, here is what that Conservative Prime Minister said:

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

That was a Conservative Prime Minister in 1960. I wonder how John Diefenbaker would feel about what we are debating today.

Before I conclude, I just want to reiterate that on the merits of the BDS issue, we believe as New Democrats that a just peace in the Middle East is possible and that it is our responsibility to work constructively to help secure that. We do not believe that the difficult task of achieving peace, with which we want Canada to be engaged fully, is about scoring political points or dividing Canadians. We think those policies are wrong. Nevertheless, we believe that Canadians have the right to speak out as they see fit on issues of public debate. However, what we will not tolerate is intimidation on campuses. What we will not tolerate is restrictions on free speech at the same time. What we will not tolerate is anti-Semitism and racism.

I would love this House to work positively to deal with this issue. The United Nations has asked us to. We can make a contribution. Given our multicultural commitment, Canada is a shining example to the world of how we can do this. However, to divide people along lines of foreign policy issues and so forth is disconcerting and saddening.

I have personally visited Israel, Palestine, the West Bank, and other areas, and I have seen how difficult the task can be. However, I want my country to play a considered role in trying to find a two-state solution that works in that country. I am not naive enough to think it is easy, but I am not naive to think that Canada has not made those kinds of contributions in the past and can do so again.

As I said earlier, there is the new Raoul Wallenberg all-party caucus that is going to be dealing with issues of this sort, not just defending political prisoners abroad and their freedom of speech, which is being restricted in so many areas. The centre that Irwin Cotler has been involved in which is just starting in Canada, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, is an example of parties of different kinds coming together to combat racism, hatred, and anti-Semitism by promoting education, awareness, research and advocacy, and co-operating with universities and academic institutions to address issues of racism and anti-Semitism. These are tools that are so much more important.

As we found the blunt instrument of the Criminal Code was not enough to deal with racism, we passed human rights codes from coast to coast to coast to allow us to find ways to address discrimination on the basis of race and the like. This is the sort of way that we can do better than simply using the blunt instruments that are in the Criminal Code and the like.

In conclusion, I oppose a motion that would “condemn” Canadians who “promote” certain views, even if those views are not views that I share. It is not the role of government or Parliament. The idea of condemning Canadians for expressing their views goes against our fundamental freedoms. I am proud to stand with my NDP colleagues to vote against the motion.

I resent that we are using our time as parliamentarians to deal with the motion as opposed to addressing racism, anti-Semitism, and intimidation. I wish we were not here in that context, but we are. I just want to say again that I am proud to stand in favour of free expression.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am exhausted after listening to that speech.

Just moments ago, I listened to my good friend, the member for Mount Royal, speak so eloquently about this not being a partisan issue. I myself believe that this is not a partisan issue. Therefore, it is really important to listen to this member speak about it and remember the human rights that we are discussing. I thank the member over there so much, because he brought to us a real lesson and something that we should admire. I appreciate all of his words.

Omar Barghouti, the founder of the BDS movement, and ironically an alumnus at the Tel Aviv University in Israel, has come out against a two-state solution and actively advocates for a violent uprising by any means against Israeli citizens. Can the member justify the lack of condemnation against the movement in light of what this movement truly stands for at its core?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have an obligation to speak up for free expression. I can condemn views with which I disagree, but that is not what the question is. The question is whether we as a government are being called upon to “condemn any and all attempts by...groups or individuals to promote [a certain issue]...both here at home and abroad”.

That is what I am concerned about. The words I focused on were words like “promote” and “condemn”. That is about free speech, and that is what I was trying to say during my remarks.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Victoria for his speech, and I have a significant amount of respect for the position that he advocates in this House.

To be frank, I too am struggling with the motion that is before this House. I want to know if the member would be supportive of this resolution if we simply deleted the last part of the motion before the House, which reads, “call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement”.

I think we all agree that we have opposition to BDS, but it is the latter part of the motion, if that part were deleted, would the member and his caucus colleagues support the motion?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion and comments of my hon. friend from Scarborough. We have a lot in common and I appreciate very much his thoughts.

The problem with doing so, I think, is just from a legal point of view, that it is the gravamen of the section. After the initial language, it talks about calling upon the government to condemn thus and so and individuals who promote that.

It seems to me that is the burden of the motion. That is why we are here primarily, after the hortatory language, with which I totally agree, by the way. That is why it is difficult to sever it in any way that would make any sense and leave any meaning on the table. That is why I found it so difficult to accept the idea of simply severing it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am struck by my colleague's eloquence and thank him very much for a very strong speech.

A couple of things struck me. First, I am surprised the Liberals have indicated they will support what is a badly worded motion and is really doing a disservice to the House that we have to waste time. I would much rather see more government bills. We have not seen any of those yet, so I am hoping that we will get an idea of what the government's agenda is very soon.

I was trying to figure out the mechanism by which a government would condemn an individual's questions. What is the mechanism? Say this motion passes, and it looks like the government side will support this, what is the specific mechanism? How are we to condemn individuals for supporting or opposing a particular motion? Does the hon. member have any idea or is it just kind of a poppycock motion on which we have wasted a whole Thursday?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I struggled with the question that my hon. friend posed. I do not know the instrument by which the Conservatives believe we should action this motion.

Do we put a newspaper ad with the Government of Canada logo on it? I do not know. It is unclear, it is vague and it goes back to the point with which I started my remarks, not that I wish to be provocative, not that I wish to term what I fear has become a partisan debate. This is about trying to divide Canadians for political purposes. I resent, and I am angry and saddened by where we are as a consequence.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's speech was indeed very eloquent and passionate. Sadly, it was very wrong as well at law, which surprises me from this learned member who is a lawyer.

He would know well that the Keegstra case of the Supreme Court of Canada, which dealt with anti-Semitism itself, said that there can be a reasonable limit to free speech when there is a promotion of hatred toward an identifiable group. Why he is really wrong is not the Supreme Court case, it is that this is not limiting freedom. This is actually rejecting and condemning.

As parliamentarians who represent all Canadians of all faiths, we have a duty to condemn conduct that is clearly the thin edge of the wedge, promoting hatred toward an identifiable group by dressing it up in other ways.

Would that member tell this House, especially given his background, working in national security, how some of these legitimate fronts to hate groups, like a business boycott, are actually the mechanisms to try to normalize hate?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, a fellow lawyer. I know he has studied these issues as well.

The Keegstra case, the 1990 Supreme Court of Canada case, was a four-three split in the Supreme Court in which, as I thought I said, the Supreme Court upheld Canada's hate speech restrictions. There was a strong philosophical difference between the judges in that case.

As for section 2(d) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which he just referenced about subversion and other issues of speech, there is a careful balance that was the subject of months of debate in this place before they got it right. That is what I say needs to be done in this context as well.

If we want to criminalize speech, let us do it right in the Criminal Code. We have done it before. Let us use the charter and let us find the right balance rather than a bald statement about why this is bad.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for his statements. In many respects we agree on a lot of issues. We obviously do not agree on this one.

He talked about Brandenburg, but Brandenburg was trying to put a guy who was at a Nazi rally in prison for one to 10 years. Keegstra was an attempt to put somebody in prison for speech.

This is where we are going all wrong. The Conservative motion that was put forward, with which I agree, is not trying to put anyone in prison. It is not trying to say that speech goes in the Criminal Code. It is simply trying to say that we denounce speech or condemn speech that is, to me, anti-Semitic, racist, or xenophobic, and I think that is perfectly appropriate.

The hon. member said, and in that I agree, “We will defend to the death somebody's right to say something”. If the hon. member had in this wording, instead of “BDS” the word “anti-Semitism” or “racism” or “homophobia”, would he then also be against the motion?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and respect enormously the contribution he made to this debate earlier today.

I want to say, in general terms, my reference to the Brandenburg case was simply to point out the high-water mark or the low-water mark of the United States by contrast to Canada, which, after the Maxwell Cohen recommendations, came up with a very balanced, thoughtful arrangement, which was upheld in Keegstra in one case and struck down in Zündel in another.

I am saying that to simply have a bald statement condemning speech is wrong. That is not the way Canadians do business. That is why I thought I needed to ground this motion in a broader description of the Canadian legal system, so that Canadians would know that freedom of expression remains a protected value in our country, but that if there is violence involved or if there are other aspects, yes, we should condemn it. We have, and we have laws to deal with it, not a bald statement about views with which we disagree.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I often like to say that all people are democrats when they win, but the true test of democrats is how they act when they lose. It is easy to support free speech with which we agree, but the true test of whether we actually believe in the right to free speech is how we act and react to speech with which we disagree.

I am listening to this argument that says this is just a motion to have the government condemn a belief or expression of a Canadian and we are not actually doing anything. The road to erosion of rights always begins with a wedge in the door. It first is about condemning; next, it is about restricting; then it becomes about punishing; then it becomes about banning. It is always a slippery slope. I reject this notion that by just having the government condemn something, we do not start down a road where the government, as is called for by this motion, starts to tell Canadians what they can and cannot agree with.

I would like to ask my friend this. Does he agree with the positions expressed by some members of the House that merely having the government condemn things is a harmless act of government?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a thoughtful question. It is, indeed, problematic. “Slippery slope” is an old cliché, but I do worry about it. If we start making blanket condemnations of views that are impossible or, indeed, abhorrent in certain places, it is a slippery slope because then people will ask what we are going to do about it. An earlier question raised the same thing, how we are going to action this particular condemnation.

The question is an excellent one, with which I agree.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Indigenous Affairs.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this important debate on a motion today. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Despite what was just said in a question and comment by a friend in the NDP, this is not about a motion that might exist in the future. When we are having a debate in Parliament, it is on the motion on the order paper today, not some hypothetical slippery slope that they would prefer to debate.

What we are debating, clearly are two central things: that as parliamentarians we are not crafting new law but debating an important subject for the nation, and the motion brought forward by the Conservative opposition today in relation to the State of Israel, an ally and friend. It has two central elements. First is our traditional historic ties of friendship and alliance with the State of Israel from its early days, and I will explore some of that in my speech today.

However, the pith of this motion, the critical part of it, was carefully missed by my friend from Victoria. I have the utmost respect for the MP from Victoria. He is a smart gentleman. We practised at the same law firm for a time. However, he wanted to debate a motion that did not exist, as if this was about barring speech. This is not about barring speech; this is about the responsibilities that parliamentarians have to condemn actions that are a cover for hate speech. That is what this motion intends to do. The words are not banning or eliminating free speech. If the hon. member for Victoria and his colleagues looked at the motion, they would see the language is that we “reject” and “condemn” the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which in many ways has been a very clever front for anti-Semitic propaganda around the world.

It is sad that some organizations, some groups in Canada, even some labour movement leaders and folks, have supported what is really the thin edge of the wedge of hate. If there is a slippery slope at all here, it is not the slippery slope of this motion; it is the slippery slope of tolerating this type of conduct by the boycott movement. Words like apartheid Israel and things like that are the slippery slope, allowing people to mask their anti-Semitism in some sort of boycott language as if this is a business transaction. In many ways, this movement has been an attempt by people who are opposed to the very presence and existence of the State of Israel to promote intolerance, to promote the economic disruption of a country that happens to be the only true democracy in a region of the world that desperately needs more democracy, more freedom, and more respect for the rule of law and rights.

With regard to this movement, as parliamentarians we have the ability—and hopefully all whips will allow each MP—to not just state our views, but on the motion itself to stand and say whether we condemn this type of conduct, which is the thin edge of the wedge of hate. There is no other way to describe it. It is discrimination and intolerance dressed up as trade sanctions and economic language, in many ways like some groups in the United States that for years tried to legitimatize a front for groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others, having people run for office, clothed in the appearance of debate when it was the advancement of a message that singled out a group of people for hatred and discrimination.

As parliamentarians on all sides of this House, and I am glad that the member for Mount Royal and others have called this what it is, it is our duty to say whether we do condemn this type of dressing up for anti-Semitism. I know that I and many of my colleagues on this side, and clearly many on the other side, see this for what it is. It is the thin edge of the wedge of discrimination.

This is the balance. This is not, as I said, about banning speech. However, our courts and our society have looked at this issue of free speech in the years since the charter. Section 1 of the charter is the attempt for our society and our courts to balance that fundamental freedom of freedom of speech, which is critical, with hate.

Where is the appropriate balance? Courts and jurists have looked at this and tried to strike the right balance when it comes to speech and when it comes to incarceration, as my friend from Mount Royal talked about. The courts have looked at this responsibly to say that we need a society that promotes the freedom of expression, even expression that turns the stomachs of others, provided it does not promote hatred directly against an identifiable group. That is free speech.

Our motion today is about condemning a movement that is dressing up hate speech. We are not banning it, but we are calling it for what it is. I think that is what parliamentarians have a duty to do for their constituents and for the free diverse society that we have. I remember in this place that the Aga Khan talked about how cosmopolitan Canada truly is as a beacon to the world, because of our diversity. People come here to embrace the freedoms and reject the conflicts and hate of other places in the world.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to ensure that we do condemn, we do reject, we do point out movements that we think are disruptive to our cohesiveness as a diverse society.

The Keegstra case, which the Supreme Court looked at two decades ago, did look at this specific issue. Do members know what the issue was? It was once again anti-Semitism, which sadly is something we cannot stamp out in our society. This was related to a school teacher wilfully promoting conspiracy theories and ridiculous notions that promoted hatred toward the Jewish people. The Supreme Court balanced that fundamental expression issue two decades ago. Therefore, clearly we can balance the fact that parliamentarians can condemn and call conduct for what it is.

I said the motion has two things in the boycott, divestment and sanction movement, which I think many people in this House have said are discrimination and anti-Semitism by other means. It is a way that people are infiltrating the willingness to single out a group of people and promote hatred, whether it is on campuses, in groups, or through organizations. We should call this for what it is.

The other part of the motion today started off with our historic relationship with the State of Israel. It is a very long and proud relationship that I think bears notice in this debate. Canada was one of only 33 countries in the United Nations, in 1947, that supported the creation of what became the State of Israel. We should be proud of that fact, that we stood for friends, for people, particularly after the horrors of the Holocaust.

This is the second time that I will be talking about Lester Pearson in debate this week. My friends will be questioning my Conservative bona fides very soon. Lester Pearson came up in the discussion of withdrawal of the ISIS mission. Pearson would not have supported the move of this current Liberal government. Lester Pearson was the UN special committee chair that looked at issues related to the borders of the State of Israel. He was awarded the Medal of Valor and the Herzl Award for that role. That is good. We remember the shameful slogan that came from the time when Mackenzie King was prime minister. Sadly, it was sometimes said that it was King who said it. It was not Mr. King, but it was someone in his party who said that “none is too many”, talking about accepting Jews into Canada who were fleeing persecution and ultimate death in Europe.

We should be proud that we are condemning such a viewpoint, such exclusion, and such discrimination today with this debate in the House. I was also very proud of the strong stance that the last government took with respect to our friend and ally in Israel.

As an ally, we do not flee our allies when international opinion and discrimination is swarming around them. We work with them. We trade with Israel and we share values with Israel. We protect areas of the world with Israel. We have to remember that friends and allies need to see Canada taking a leadership position. That is why we are here today, not to ban speech but to condemn veiled attempts at anti-Semitism.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat a question that I asked one of the member's colleagues, and that is in regard to the whole BDS issue. The movement has singled out the country of Israel. That in itself has raised the issue of a racial profile of a country in which Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very much concerned. It is maybe something in which we could be and should be concerned, as the member for Mount Royal emphasized a great deal, and justifiably so, on how the BDS is focused on one country. I am wondering if the member might want to provide some comments on that issue.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary referenced comments today in debate by his colleague from Mount Royal. This is a singling out of one state, and by impact one people, which is really the veiled attempt here.

The irony of the BDS movement is the ultimate economic impact, if there is some. Fortunately, people see this for what it is, and it is not as successful as some of these groups might like. However, the people who could be ultimately hurt by such an economically skewed approach to attacking the State of Israel are Palestinians who work in some of the plants and facilities of these international companies that trade products around the world, including here in Canada.

We have heard the story of SodaStream and others that employ people of all faiths in Israel. That is what is exciting about the State of Israel. It is a democracy and it has rights for all. What I think we see with this movement is an attempt to single out and hurt a state, but behind that is singling out a religious faith and group of people. That is what should be condemned.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the motion, and I appreciate that one of the essences of the debate that has arisen today is that it allows us to focus on the issue of racism. That is something that every member in the House, from all parties, of course, deplores. One of the essences of racism is stereotyping. It is that whenever we adopt a position that attempts to brand a group of people with a certain conclusion, without any regard for the individuality or individual expression within that group, that is an essence of racism.

I am troubled by the element of that which is present in the motion, when it says “the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel...” We attempt to say that every proponent, every Canadian, who might have a position on BDS and Israel is automatically branded and stereotyped as someone advocating the delegitimization and dehumanization of Israel.

I happen to know that it is not case. There are people who hold the belief. It is not one that I share, because I am not a proponent of the BDS movement. However, there could be a person, in good faith, who thinks that advocating economic sanctions against the Government of Israel as a means of pressuring it to take different foreign policy decisions, particularly in the occupied territories, may be a legitimate political action. It may not be that they are trying to dehumanize or delegitimize Israel; they are trying to pressure it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the hon. member, but we are running out of time and we have five minutes.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vancouver Kingsway for talking about racism. Canada has to learn from our past. I am an Irish-Canadian. Probably the first group to be discriminated against was the Irish: “No Irish need apply”. Then we saw it with Ukrainians, Japanese, Italians and Sikhs. We have seen discrimination, and that is something we should all condemn, which is sort of the language of the motion.

However, with the BDS movement, we see groups that really want to promote hate dressing it up. We saw similar efforts to tarnish the gay pride parade in Toronto by entering a float related to attacking the State of Israel. It had nothing to do with celebrating diversity, and the parade was about that. These groups are trying to use legitimate organizations, or covers, to promote their underlying objective, which is anti-Semitism and a rejection of the right of the State of Israel to exist. We should call these things what they are.

We have a tolerant and open society. People can have opinions on a whole range of things, and that is encouraged. However, when it is creeping into hate and discrimination, and we do not go so far in the motion to do anything like banning it, as some in the NDP suggest, it is a responsibility of parliamentarians to condemn a conduct that is fuelled at anti-Semitism and rejection of our ally.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this important issue affects Canadians all across the country.

I would like to thank the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the member for Calgary Signal Hill for bringing the motion to the House.

As we all know, Canada and Israel have enjoyed a long-standing friendship since May 11, 1949, when formal diplomatic relations were established. This is undoubtedly due to the approximately 20,000 Canadians living in Israel and 350,000 members of the Canadian Jewish community. The strength of our relationship with Israel cannot be overstated.

Most recently, in 2014, our Conservative government sent a delegation, including the former prime minister along with six other ministers and Canadian business leaders, to Israel. During this visit, the former prime minister became the first sitting Canadian prime minister to address the Israeli Knesset. There are very few countries that share such a strong and lasting relationship as we do. As I mentioned earlier, this has gone on for almost 67 years now.

Let us take a long look at the trading relationship between our two nations. In 2014, Canada exported $449 million worth and imported $1.1 billion worth. These exports and imports to Israel and to Canada provide crucial employment opportunities for Canadians right across the country, including for constituents in my riding.

Israel is a leader in innovation and technology. In fact, in 2015, six of the ten companies on Forbes top 10 health technology companies were Israeli.

Canada has signed numerous bilateral agreements with Israel, including, but not limited to, the Canada-Israel strategic partnership memorandum of understanding, an MOU on foreign military co-operation and public diplomacy co-operation, among many others. Negotiations to modernize and expand the Canada-Israel free trade agreement are ongoing.

Israel also has numerous agreements with provincial governments, including my home province of Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

It is because of this relationship that I encourage all members to support the motion, to reject the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

I will now specifically turn to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

The BDS movement seeks to delegitimize and isolate and single out Israel from other countries across the world. It is an affront to Canadians by claiming a narrative that Israel is uniquely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This movement to boycott Israel is an attack against the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and it completely disregards human rights offenders around the world.

The movement not only targets Israel politically, the movement targets the Israeli population, anywhere from pressuring consumers not to buy Israeli products, to calling on universities to cut ties with Israeli academia and for Israeli athletes to be banned from international sports competitions.

This movement is not pro-Palestine. It is not supportive of a two-state solution. It is just simply anti-Israel. By boycotting our relationship with Israel, this movement will not only negatively affect Israel, but also Canadians who rely on the importation and exportation of Israeli and Canadian goods.

This movement is anti-Semitic. It promotes anti-Semitism in Canada and abroad, it targets Israel and the Jewish community, and we as legislators must continue to fight against this. It is a form of discrimination based strictly on national origin. BDS activists call on boycotting people who come from the Jewish state. It is no way pro-Palestinian. It is just, again, anti-Israel.

The BDS movement is yet another message, as I said, for spreading anti-Semitism and advocating for the elimination of the Jewish state. It forces the blame of the Arab-Israeli conflict on a single actor, completely disregarding the multitude of issues and the actors involved.

It is clear that the intent of those in favour of BDS is not to resolve the conflict, but, again, as I pointed out, just to single out Israel.

BDS is a movement which seeks to target all Israelis without discretion. It isolates Israel and it serves as a means to collectively punish a diverse population.

We as legislators must recognize and reaffirm the State of Israel's right to exist and the right to self-defence.

As we all know, this movement has in fact been condemned by those of us on this side of the House and by members of the other side as well. Again, I encourage all members of the House to support the motion.

BDS undermines peace efforts and brings the Arab-Israeli conflict to Canada. It does nothing to bring the two sides of the conflict together, or promote peace or improve the quality of life for Palestinian citizens. We cannot allow Canadian businesses to be used for social exclusion and discrimination of people based on their national origin.

In the past, movements similar to BDS have been ineffective and historically have only mobilized the Jewish and pro-Israel community to buy the products that have been targeted. Israel's economy is continually growing, and we should be encouraging investment and growth opportunities for Canadian businesses rather than trying to restrict them.

The Canada-Israel relationship is one of Canada's strongest and most enduring, and it is for that reason that I once again call on all members of the House to support this motion.

To quote our former prime minister, the right hon. member for Calgary Heritage:

In the democratic family of nations, Israel represents values which our government takes as articles of faith, and principles to drive our national life.

And therefore, through fire and water, Canada will stand with you.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with what my friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock has said.

A lot of us are looking at this now in the lens of anti-Semitism and how this singles out Israel. However, I liked what the member has said about the fact that this also harms Canada because it takes away trade from Canadian companies in what I really do believe is the Silicon Valley of the Middle East.

Would my hon. friend be willing to expand on how this motion hurts Canadian businesses and Canadian universities, as well as ordinary Canadians?