Mr. Speaker, the member's motion touches on many different segments of the issue. Particularly, I would like to touch on two aspects.
First, I want to join in saying that we, the New Democrats, unequivocally condemn the comments by the Iranian cleric, as well as the comments by the supreme leader regarding the destruction of Israel and including, most recently, when he said that “Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor....that has to be removed and eradicated”.
These comments are of course unacceptable and incite violence against an entire population. It is not a path that I think anybody in this House of Commons wants to see anywhere.
With that said, on the issue around establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, the Conservatives are arguing that Canada should not reward Iran with diplomatic re-engagement. The previous Conservative government did many arms trade deals with human rights abusing countries, like Saudi Arabia. Why is member's perspective that he is willing to engage with one human rights abuser but does not advocate for Canada trying to have a conversation with another?
Without diplomatic relations, there are challenges. On February 13 at the foreign affairs committee, Amnesty International, Alex Neve said:
We do note that if diplomatic channels are open, it offers an avenue for advocacy, diplomacy, and more regular consular access, including in-person consular access from Canada rather than from a partner country. These options won't be there if the channels are closed.
Does the member not agree that we should actually engage in a conversation, even though we do not agree with Iran's perspectives?