SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mar/18/24 12:36:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the Bloc will be supporting the motion. I think it is very important. I certainly hope many members across the House choose to support this motion, which does align with international law and with Canadian policy and human rights. In terms of the piece of this legislation that calls for a recognition of the state of Palestine, I will say, once again, that 139 United Nations member states have already taken this step. This is something Canada should have done some time ago. I will also say that the U.S. has signalled that it is ready for this conversation. The United Kingdom has signalled that it is ready for this conversation and, as I mentioned in my speech, the Spanish Prime Minister has already asked Parliament to recognize the state of Palestine. This is something that is already happening around the world. It has always been, for me, a very difficult thing that we talk about a two-state solution and the need for a two-state solution, and that this is the path by which we find peace for Israelis and Palestinians, yet we do not recognize the existence of two states. It does not make sense. We need to have that recognition so the conversations that lead to a more peaceful future in the Middle East can happen.

229 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Mar/18/24 1:04:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today Liberals have the chance to stand up for peace and justice. The minister and her government keep talking about a commitment to a two-state solution, yet the Liberals refuse to recognize two states. There are 139 countries that recognize the state of Palestine. Canada does not. As it stands, Canada continues to deny the most fundamental right of self-determination to the Palestinian people. When is Canada going to back up its supposed commitment to a two-state solution by recognizing the state of Palestine? Will the Liberals support this motion and finally recognize the state of Palestine?

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Mar/18/24 2:14:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I will read into the record what legal expert Dr. Ardi Imseis said about the legal framework for Palestinian statehood. He stated, “Palestine is recognized by 140 states. “Palestine is a juridical fact. Its territory is under illegal foreign military occupation by Israel, but that does not mean that the State of Palestine does not exist in law. “It possesses all four of the criterion for statehood as codified in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: (1) a permanent population; (2) a territory; (3) a government; and (4) the capacity to enter into foreign relations with other states. “Successive Israeli governments have, for years, indicated that they will never allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and that only the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in the land between the river and the sea. “This is unlawful. “As a peremptory norm, no people's right to self-determination in their own territory can be the subject of negotiation under international law. This is the last chance Canada has to save the two state framework set in motion by the UN in 1947.” Where will the Liberal government stand today on Palestine's statehood?

212 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Mar/18/24 4:39:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if there was one thing I tried to show in my speech, it is that we have reached an impasse. If the parties are no longer able to find a way out of the crisis, the international community must step in and try to impose one. This means that certain states must find the courage to do what others have done. Some 140 states around the world have already recognized the state of Palestine, and Spain, the United Kingdom and Belgium are considering recognizing it. I think that if Canada joined the movement, it would send a strong message to Israel, not that we are against the very existence of the State of Israel or its security, quite the contrary. We support the creation of two states living side by side in peace and security. This can only happen by recognizing of the state of Palestine.

148 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Mar/18/24 6:27:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely not. Again, I think this motion would bring pain to one of two communities in Canada because one strongly wants it to pass and one strongly wants it to fail. Certainly, foreign policy written this way is not a good thing when we would be saying that we are suddenly going to recognize the state of Palestine unilaterally, when for 50 years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, we have said that the parties need to negotiate. The two-state solution will only recognize a state when there are defined borders and a government duly elected to run that state. However, to change it because a terrorist organization murders Israelis is a really bad precedent to set for the world, so of course I agree that we should not be doing that.

137 words

Context: House Hansard - 290 - Mar/18/24

Mr. James Bezan

Mar/18/24 8:23:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will just refer to Chapter 12 of our procedure book by Bosc and Gagnon, the 2017 edition, which says, “An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if...it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”. I draw your attention again to the original motion in paragraph (i), which is on the official recognition of the state of Palestine, and then go to what the amendment says. I will go back to the very last part of paragraph (n), which says, “maintain Canada's position that Israel has a right to exist”. Defeating the original motion, the motion that was debated all day long in the House, would have our position go back to what is the official position of the Government of Canada and has been for the last couple of decades. The amendment is out of order procedurally and should be ruled as such by you as Chair.

169 words