OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 290 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, March 18, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 18, 2024 DEBATES No. 290 No. 290 N o 290 Volume 151 290 18 03 2024 2024/03/18 11:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayer

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business

(1100) [ Translation ] Impact Assessment Act Bill C-375. Second reading

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

moved that Bill C-375,

An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak. Today is really special, because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to explain the bill that I introduced with the support of the entire official opposition team. I put this bill together with the help of the House of Commons legislative drafting team and the team that I work with here in Ottawa and in my riding.

This is the first bill that I have introduced in the eight years and five months that I have been a member of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for putting their faith in me in 2015, 2019 and 2021. The decision is in their hands as to what will happen in the future, but I trust their judgment. Bill C-375 is entitled “An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements)”. I want to talk about the title because, although I was obviously happy and quite moved the first time I saw the bill in print, I also did a bit of a double take.

Those who have the French version will notice that it says “fédéro-provinciaux” agreements. I was a little surprised to see that “fédéraux” is spelled with an “o” at the end. Since this was written by legal experts, I approached the table to make sure that this was indeed how it should be spelled. I was told that when it comes to legislation, “fédéraux” is traditionally spelled with an “o”. It is a small detail, but my colleagues know that, when it comes to introducing a bill, we want to make sure that everything is written in proper French, which is clearly the case here. Climate change is real, as we know.

We need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the effects of climate change. Human beings have contributed to climate change and must play a major role in this area. That is why our bill aims to combat climate change more effectively. To put it succinctly, I would say that this bill essentially aims to establish a single environmental assessment per project, because, at this time, there is overlap between federal and provincial environmental powers. When a project is under way, an environmental assessment must be carried out. The first province to adopt this system was Alberta.

Why carry out two assessments if one has been done already, especially considering that the need for green projects to address climate change is greater than ever? This bill aims to significantly improve efficiency and optimize the scientific effort involved in assessing environmental projects. It aims to reduce duplication. In essence, it strives for collaboration, not confrontation. We think that provincial scientists are just as capable as federal scientists.

Why pit them against each other by having two environmental assessments done when they could work together on just one and achieve the same objectives much more efficiently and pragmatically? That is the big issue this bill tackles. What is the approach? For years now, our party has been saying that we need to stop doing two assessments every time. Federal and provincial officials need to stop stepping on each other's toes. When we came up with this bill, we looked at two options.

We could have gone through every piece of legislation and analyzed every situation in order to amend this or that act, but that would have taken a very long time, and the resulting bill would have been a brick. That would have been cumbersome, so we opted for a pragmatic approach instead. My thanks to the team of legislative drafters we worked with. This approach creates a mechanism to enter into agreements. Yes, we have no choice but to work together to fight climate change, but, in this case, we do so gladly because that is what needs to be done for the sake of the planet and the environment.

That is why we are laying the groundwork for agreements that will enable federal and provincial partners to work together on a single study, rather than competing with each other. There are no good guys or bad guys. Nobody is stricter or more lenient. Science is science. Science has no allegiance, no political stripe. Science is rigorous. Let us put Canadian scientists to work for the environment. That is how we want to do it.

(1105) Needless to say, we need green projects now more than ever. As we speak, under the provisions of Bill C-69 , which was introduced and passed by this government, the government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects. Obviously, as a Quebecker, this affects me, and I was deeply offended when I learned of that. We recognize Quebec's extensive expertise in hydroelectricity. All projects have been carried out in accordance with the environmental assessment process that falls under Quebec jurisdiction.

However, this greedy government, which always interferes where it does not belong—in other words, in areas of provincial jurisdiction—has given itself veto power over hydroelectric projects. If the federal government had had veto power over every hydroelectric project, including the Romaine River, James Bay, Manicouagan River, Outardes River and Betsiamites River projects, where would Quebec be today?

If the federal government had given itself veto power in the 1950s, when studies were being done for Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, for the two generating stations on the Outardes River and the four generating stations on the Manicouagan River, where would Quebec be today? The green light was given in the 1950s, in 1958 to be precise, and the project was completed in the 1960s, with the magnificent inauguration of Manic-5 in 1968. The federal government had no business being involved and that is why it was done properly.

Why then did it interfere in this provincial jurisdiction by giving itself veto power and the ability to conduct an environmental assessment of hydroelectric projects? This issue came before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the reference concerning the Impact Assessment Act, the Supreme Court of Canada chided the government for interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Obviously, the government did not take it as an order, but rather as an opinion of the Supreme Court. That is the issue. It is an opinion and it requires a response.

Our response to that Supreme Court opinion is that the provinces are going to work hand in hand with the federal government and not against one another. That is how we have to look at environmental issues. Let us not forget that the government said that it was going to review the situation. We have a suggestion for the government to ensure that the process is much more efficient and that there will be environmental assessments for major projects. There needs to be an environmental assessment for every project, and those will be done perfectly well by our experts.

Right now, there is a battle between the pragmatic approach that we support and the dogmatic approach. What has the government done to protect the environment in the eight years it has been in office? It has made announcements, announcements and more announcements. It has created the new carbon tax, imposed taxes and, obviously, increased the carbon tax. That is the very dogmatic approach that the Liberals are taking. What exactly has been achieved after eight years of this government? In eight years, this government has never met its targets, except during the pandemic.

If the government has to shut down the economy to meet its targets, then that is not exactly the best approach. That is what is so disappointing. The government's approach is all about taxing people. In a few days, on April 1, the government plans to increase the Liberal carbon tax by 23%. That is not the right thing to do. We will have an opportunity to come back to that a little later. Some people will say that the Conservatives are against everything the government does. Of course, if the government were doing good things, we would be happy.

If we were seeing results, we would be happy, but that is not what is happening. The government has yet to meet its targets, and we are not the only ones saying it. Every year, the UN tables a report that evaluates the effectiveness of environmental measures for more than sixty countries around the world. Scientists from all over the world provide an objective, non-partisan analysis of the efforts being made to combat climate change and their results. I want to make sure I am using the exact wording used by the UN, so I will read this in English: “Climate Change Performance Index 2024 — Rating table”.

(1110) This document was recently tabled at COP 29. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Not 40th, 50th or 60th, but 62nd. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd on its performance in the fight against climate change, dropping from 58th place last year. Are the Liberals' climate change policies working? No. Canadians are not the only ones who see it, knowing that the Liberal carbon tax is set to rise in a few days. Scientists around the world see it too, and they clearly have no partisan political agenda like we do.

Our very office requires us to have a political agenda. It is our duty to serve as the loyal opposition to this government and therefore to identify flaws. Scientists around the world have now confirmed that Canada's performance puts it in 62nd place worldwide. We need to take action on climate change. We need pragmatic measures. That is why, at last September's Conservative Party convention, our leader outlined our plan to tackle climate change. I want to emphasize the fact that this happened at our national convention; it was not some press release issued at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday.

I was a journalist, and I have been in politics for 15 years, so I am well aware that when people send out press releases on Friday evenings or at the end of the day, it is because they do not really want anyone to talk about them. In this case, it was quite the opposite. We had 2,500 grassroots members from across the country, all of them gathered to hear the member for Carleton give his first speech since being elected as leader of the official opposition. In that speech, he laid the foundation for a future government that a whole lot of Canadians want, none more than us, of course.

Our leader laid out and explained the four pillars of our party's potential government action on the environment. First, we have to invest in new technologies, through tax incentives, to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in high tech through tax incentives is a pragmatic solution. The people whose plants or businesses generate greenhouse gases know the reasons why, and they, not Ottawa, are the ones who know how to lower their emissions. With tax incentives, they can take prompt, concrete action and achieve tangible results.

The first pillar therefore consists of tax incentives that encourage investments in high-tech solutions for reducing pollution. The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on climate change is to green-light green projects. We need green energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and even nuclear energy now more than ever. None of them generate greenhouse gas emissions. These are the avenues that we need to explore, but we have to speed up the process. We need to green-light green projects.

This bill aims to speed up the process and develop a game plan for collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. Instead of confrontation, we have to strive for collaboration. The second pillar is therefore to green-light green projects. The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. Canada has so many natural resources and so many energy sources. Why go abroad for natural resources or energy when we have them right here at home? As long as we need so-called fossil fuels, we will always support Canadian energy and Canadian products because, yes, we do still need them.

The HEC, a Quebec institution, released its annual report about a month ago. What did it find? It found that the consumption of so-called fossil fuels has increased by 7% in Quebec. As long as it is needed, I would rather consume Canadian energy rather than the 48% of American energy that we currently consume. I have nothing against Texas or Louisiana, but the last time I checked, they were not contributing very much—in fact they were not giving one cent—to the principle of equalization. Finally, the fourth pillar of our environmental action plan is to work hand in hand with first nations.

When a project is carried out on ancestral land, we must make first nations communities our partners, rather than handing over a cheque and telling them to leave. On the contrary, we need to work together for the common good. In short, this bill is about focusing on collaboration and pragmatic measures in order to make progress in the fight against climate change.

(1115) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, what I see within the legislation is that those in the Conservative Party, in essence, are saying that they want, from a federal perspective, to open up any sort of development without ensuring that there is a process for protecting our environment, which would be off-loaded to provinces and would ultimately allow provinces to make the decision. The question I have for the member is this: Would he not acknowledge that there is a role when we have these major projects that have an impact that go beyond a provincial boundary?

Mr. Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why I will never be a Liberal. The Liberals think that Ottawa knows best, which is exactly what the member said earlier. He thinks that it is not enough to have the provinces do their job. Yes, the provinces will continue to do their job, but the federal government will do it too. Instead of saying, “I'm from Ottawa and I know what is best for this or that project,” the government should work hand in hand with the provinces. This is the way to deal in this country. However, this is why we say this is a government with an arrogant attitude. It is saying, “Ottawa knows best”. We should be working together instead of working against each other.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, this seems like a very useful bill. It gives precedence to measures that already exist in the provinces. For example, if we look at Quebec, its environmental measures are stricter, I believe. There is no reason for the federal government to conduct an environmental impact assessment when the Government of Quebec has already rejected a project following its own environmental assessment. Take the GNL Québec project in Saguenay, for example. I have a simple question for my colleague.

The federal Impact Assessment Act already states that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada can give a province or an indigenous leader the power to conduct part of the impact assessment. I am wondering what the difference is between what is being proposed and what already exists in the act.

(1120) Mr. Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Speaker, just because something is set out in the act does not mean that the government enforces it. My Liberal colleague just demonstrated that. The Liberals do not trust the provinces, but we do. What we want is to establish a mechanism so that, from now on, the federal and provincial governments must work together on every project. The Bloc Québécois is wondering whether environmental assessments are effective.

I must remind them that, when their leader was the environment minister for Quebec, he refused to conduct an environmental assessment for the most polluting project in Quebec's history, McInnis Cement. Now, the Bloc Québécois want to lecture us about the environment. I am sorry, but the leader of the Bloc Québécois will always be the Quebec environment minister who authorized the most polluting project in the history of Quebec.

[ English ]

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Cons are always on the side of oil giants who are making record profits. Why have the Cons always given space to big polluters, giving them a free ride and refusing to tax the corporate greed to help Canadians?

Mr. Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Speaker, let me remind everybody that when we talk about the future of this country, we are talking about a climate change reality, but as long as we need fossil fuel energy, we will fight for Canadian energy. This is so simple. Maybe some people like to live in a dream world, but the reality is that we need that kind of energy today. As far as I am concerned, why would we support that in other countries? Why would we buy from and send billions of dollars outside of this country to people who are developing their industry, while we have everything here in this country?

However, we have to work hand in hand with first nations, provinces and everybody to develop all the potential in energy and natural resources of this great country that is Canada.

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to why, when providing amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, the member did not fix some of the problems, including ensuring that there is proper consultation with first nations.

Mr. Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would go back to see what our leader has said many, many times about making first nations our partners for each and every project. Our leader was crystal clear a year ago and repeated that just a month ago. He said that we have to work hand in hand with first nations and make them our partners for the prosperity of Canada.

Points of Order Unparliamentary Language Points of Order

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party just insinuated that the Conservative Party of Canada are cons. We try very hard to ensure that we use parliamentary language. I would ask the member of the NDP to apologize for that comment and—

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for Foothills for raising this issue. I am going to come back to the hon. member on this matter with some haste.

Impact Assessment Act Private Members' Business

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375,

An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-375. Second reading

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment. The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement.

That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment. We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process.

Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment. When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.

There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries.

Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways. There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review.

We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.

(1125) This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.

This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing.

These are some of the more high-profile areas we have worked on. An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.

I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69 . This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful. That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.

(1130) Mr. John Barlow :

How many pipelines to tidewaters have been built?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I can tell the member there are more pipelines to coastal waters than there were with Stephen Harper.

Mr. John Barlow :

There are zero.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

No, you're reflecting on Harper. With Harper, it can be measured by inches. For—

The Speaker :

I am going to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary to encourage all members to please wait their turns to take the floor. We will allow the person who is speaking to have the floor and to continue with their statement.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, we need look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It clearly indicates that the different levels of government have a very important regulatory role to play. For the Conservative Party to deny that fact does a disservice to our environment and to Canadians. Even though Conservatives might stand and say what they believe is best for Canada's environment, quite frankly their actions speak louder than words. We see that with their flip-flopping on the issue of the price on pollution. Who knows where they will ultimately land on that.

They are more concerned about areas that are to the detriment of our environment. I wish they would give more thought to recognizing that climate change is a reality and that having good, sound environment policy is needed from the Conservative Party.

(1135) [ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to offer my deepest condolences to the entire House of Commons staff and to the loved ones and family of the staff member we lost last week. I was going to say that I am pleased to debate Bill C‑375 . I had planned a speech in good faith to recognize the positive aspects of this bill. However, I think it is a shame that when I asked the bill's sponsor a question earlier, he immediately responded with a partisan attack. I think that is a shame at a time when we are seeing mayors in Quebec stepping down because of the hate they receive from the public.

When politicians express hate toward each other, that inspires the public to express hate toward their representatives. I think it is terrible when, instead of being respectful and asking and answering questions reasonably, people in politics here immediately get partisan. I think that is unfortunate, and I just wanted to mention it. I will still deliver the speech I prepared because this is a bill that seems useful to me. As the member explained, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Impact Assessment Act so that, in certain cases, the federal process will not apply to a designated project.

It is not a question of exempting projects from the environmental assessment process, but rather of replacing the federal process for a designated project with a provincial one, within the framework of that province's laws. Of course, certain conditions would have to be met. First, the minister responsible, such as the Minister of Environment, and the provincial government must enter into an agreement about the designated project. In order for the federal act not to apply to a designated project, the provincial process must apply.

Moreover, the process must, at the very least, be designed to “determine the effects that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the projects, including effects within federal jurisdiction” and to “identify mitigation measures for the adverse effects of the projects”. There are other provisions in the bill, notably to establish the conditions for the agreements between the minister and a given province. The agreement must be published in the Canada Gazette. The public may file comments.

Within 60 days, the minister must table a report that summarizes how any notices of objection were dealt with and must publish the final agreement. At first glance, as I was saying, this bill seems useful in that it tries to improve coordination between the provincial and federal governments and promote provincial government autonomy in environmental protection matters. That is a good thing.

We therefore support the bill in principle, and we would like it to be studied in committee to ensure that the proposed amendments provide an adequate framework for the non-application of the Impact Assessment Act and that the rights and prerogatives of each level of government are upheld. More specifically, what we would like to study in detail are the differences between the amendments to the existing act and the amendments proposed by Bill C‑375. As I mentioned earlier, the act already provides for an exemption or for part of the impact assessment to be delegated to a provincial government.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has the authority to delegate part of the impact assessment to a provincial government or an indigenous governing body. Obviously, that raises questions. As I asked the member earlier, if this already exists, why introduce a bill about it? The response was that it exists, but the government is not necessarily using it. As I understand it, what we should do is change the wording of the act from “may” to “shall”. It would be as simple as that. In that case, the provincial process would prevail.

I really appreciated my NDP colleague's question about why the act was not amended when it was studied a short time ago. The Impact Assessment Act was updated, and an amendment could have been made at that time. I wonder why the Conservative Party did not do that. The committee will be able to ascertain the precise differences between the existing and proposed processes, as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of one process versus the other.

(1140) In addition to these questions, there are three main reasons why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. First, we are already campaigning to ensure that all projects, including those under federal jurisdiction, comply with Quebec laws and municipal bylaws. Second, insofar as Quebec's environmental assessment processes are more rigorous and better adapted to the public's expectations, it is obvious that the provincial processes, and in this case, Quebec's, should prevail.

The environment would simply be better protected, and the social and economic needs and aspirations of Quebeckers would also be better served. Finally, it is important to avoid the kind of absurd situations where, as I was saying earlier, impact assessments are being carried out under federal law when a project has already been rejected under a provincial decision following a provincial impact assessment. That was the case, as I mentioned, with the GNL Québec project.

Members will recall that, in September 2021, the Bloc Québécois had to demand that Ottawa put an end to the federal environmental assessment for the construction of a gas plant in Saguenay after the Government of Quebec rejected the project. Once the Government of Quebec rejects a project, I do not see the point of the federal government conducting an impact assessment. Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec were clear. They did not want it, so I do not see what interest the federal government had in continuing with the process.

I want to make it clear that, when it comes to the environment, the Bloc Québécois supports the ongoing improvement of laws and policies at all levels of government—federal, provincial and even municipal—that help to better preserve the natural environment. Health and environmental protection are obviously priorities for our party. Every day, in our work as parliamentarians, we defend Quebec's environmental laws from intrusions by the federal government. We propose meaningful action to reduce the environmental impacts of human activity and to properly protect our ecosystems.

We also advocate for every level of government to respect each others' powers and jurisdictions, including the ability to legislate to improve environmental governance in the targeted areas of jurisdiction. Within the confines of its constitutional jurisdictions, the federal government must take responsibility for protecting the environment. The government has two tools it can use: taxation and regulation. The federal government is simply being asked to use those tools.

It is being asked to fully assume its responsibilities on environmental protection, but without acting in a way that contravenes the environmental laws and policies of Quebec. What is more, when it comes to environmental policies, Quebec's laws are often stricter than Canadian laws, especially since Quebec's land belongs to Quebeckers. For the most part, its occupation, use, development and protection are governed by the laws and regulations of Quebec and the municipalities. The same goes for all the Canadian provinces.

However, the federal government often gives itself the right to circumvent Quebec's laws for activities in areas under its jurisdiction. Certain activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by our laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction, for example, wharves, harbours, airports and telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to comply with Quebec's laws when it comes to federal activities and work in the province. That is in keeping with our work to defend Quebec's environmental sovereignty.

We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported the unanimous declaration of the Quebec National Assembly, which adopted a motion in April 2022 affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported that motion. Neither the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada nor the NDP supported this desire for environmental sovereignty. We saw that during the various votes on environmental measures that were held here in the House.

In general, what we are saying is that, when it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. So much the better if this bill seeks to give the provinces and Quebec more autonomy when it comes to environmental protection. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill so that it can be studied in committee.

(1145) [ English ]

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to this important issue. Today Canada is feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. Just a few weeks ago, the Government of Alberta announced that the wildfire season had begun. This was announced in February. Never in my life would I have imagined that wildfires would start in the middle of winter; yet, to anyone who has been paying attention, it is not too much of a surprise. Western Canada has been subject to a multi-year drought because of climbing temperatures. The climate crisis is here.

Since 2019, the Impact Assessment Act has been an important tool for civil society to use to advocate for strong environmental protection. There have been significant gains made through this act. For example, the Vista coal mine expansion in central Alberta was delayed because advocates fought hard to have the project undergo an environmental assessment to address several concerns from citizens. The Ring of Fire in Ontario has received regional assessment for all projects. This is important when we consider the delicate ecosystems that exist in these regions.

There are many benefits of the Impact Assessment Act that cannot be ignored. Despite these benefits, we can also see that the act has many issues. This is why the NDP voted against the Liberals' bill in 2019. One of my greatest concerns about the Impact Assessment Act is that the timelines set by the government regarding public consultations are inadequate. Extraction projects often take place near first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and they deeply impact these communities in a variety of ways.

Some of these impacts can include issues related to access to traditional medicines; effects on the ability to hunt, fish and gather; health impacts from pollution; and social impacts from the demographic changes in the communities from new workers. Meaningful consultation with impacted communities is an essential piece of implementing reconciliation. As it currently stands, the Impact Assessment Act places timelines on indigenous consultations. To me, this is not in line with the spirit of reconciliation.

Indigenous governments and communities should have the time they need to consider the impacts on projects that would affect them. If a nuclear plant or pipeline were built near one's home, would one not want to consider all the different possible impacts it could have before agreeing to support it? How is it fair to demand a short timeline on such things when these projects have such serious consequences for communities? When the Impact Assessment Act was amended, I believe there was an opportunity to allow for more meaningful consultations with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, partners and nations.

One option would be to amend the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations to allow the impact Assessment Agency to stop the clock upon indigenous peoples' request and work with indigenous authorities to ensure recognition of their laws and decisions. Another option could be to prioritize indigenous co-operation regulations that legally recognize the inherent jurisdictional authority of indigenous nations and groups and respect this decision-making authority throughout assessments and decisions. Every level of government owes it to indigenous peoples to provide avenues of meaningful consultation.

When projects undergo environmental assessment and threaten indigenous health, culture, heritage and livelihoods, we cannot expect the current timelines to address this, especially when we consider the diverse needs of different nations across the country. We must ensure that there is proper consultation and meaningful collaboration that uplifts communities. Ultimately, the Liberals failed to prioritize reconciliation with indigenous peoples when they first wrote this piece of legislation. There are amendments that my colleague could have presented to address this important issue.

The Liberals like to talk a big game about standing up to oil and gas giants, but when it comes down to it, the legislation they present is littered with loopholes and exceptions for the oil and gas sector. This is like all the legislation they present. At the same time, the Conservatives seem trapped in a totally different reality, unable to acknowledge the fact that we are living in a climate crisis, let alone to create a plan to address it.

It is not surprising that, in this debate today, we heard people shouting back and forth, arguing about whether it was the Conservatives or the Liberals who built more pipelines.

(1150) When it comes to advocating for strong environmental protection, the truth is that the NDP is the only party willing to take on the biggest polluters head-on. We are the only federal party that has called for a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry. During a cost of living crisis, the country's biggest polluters should be paying their fair share, not exploiting people. We have also called for a more rigorous cap on oil and gas emissions to reach our Paris Agreement targets.

We have been pushing the government to move on the sustainable jobs act, so it is implemented as quickly as possible. The transition to a clean economy cannot leave workers behind. By embracing bold and progressive policies that uplift communities instead of catering to the fossil fuel industry, we can create a more sustainable future for all. The Impact Assessment Act is an important tool for making sure that our air, waters, homes and environments are clean and healthy.

The reality is this: The current Conservative leader has said that, if his party were to form government, it would scrap this legislation entirely. Its members believe that oil and gas companies can build projects without environmental assessments. I will remind my colleagues that this is the same industry that knowingly poisoned waters near the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and other first nations and Métis communities in northern Alberta, when tailings pond water seeped into the environment at Suncor’s Kearl tailings site. It is despicable and untenable to leave this industry to its own devices.

In addition, we cannot ignore the reality that greenhouse gases do not know provincial boundaries. We must continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and a key component of the original Impact Assessment Act is acknowledging the impact that greenhouse gases have on our environment. While we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, we must uphold this important piece of the puzzle. It is crucial that provincial governments and the federal government continue to consider greenhouse gas effects in all projects, not just ones that undergo environmental assessment. We are in a climate crisis.

As policy-makers, we owe it to future generations to continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, address pollution and consider this in all environmental assessments. We cannot afford to ignore it. Increasing global temperatures are having an immense impact on our country, which is felt in our communities and economy. We often hear that fighting climate change is expensive, but it would be even more expensive to ignore it. Fighting wildfires costs the federal government $1 billion every year, with this number expected to increase as wildfire seasons become longer and more intense.

This does not even account for the cost of wildfires in terms of our health care system. The urgency of our cause cannot be overstated. Climate change is not a distant threat but a present reality. We have witnessed the devastating consequences, from wildfires ravaging our forests to heat waves killing hundreds of people in British Columbia. The toll on human life and livelihoods is equally profound, with marginalized groups bearing the brunt of environmental injustices.

Amidst these challenges, we have to find hope by embracing bold, progressive policies, where economic prosperity and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. The time to act is now and the NDP is ready to lead the charge. As we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, I urge my colleagues to consider the undeniable impacts and costs of the climate crisis, as well as the possibilities that exist for combatting it.

It is important to make sure that we also hold the Liberal government to account, not only for the injustices that it continues to perpetuate on indigenous communities but also for its inaction when it comes to keeping our communities safe. I want to thank the member for starting this discussion. I urge all my colleagues to hold this piece of legislation responsibly.

(1155) Points of Order Unparliamentary Language—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I indicated to the hon. member for Foothills that I would come back to his point of order with due haste. We have reviewed the tapes and have listened to what the hon. member raised. In the view of the Chair, the language that was used, certainly in English, is not considered to be unparliamentary.

However, I said on February 26 and would remind all members of the fact that “insofar as debate can, on occasion, be sharp and tense, even sometimes causing some members to take offence, it can still fall within the realm of an acceptable discourse in the House.” I would encourage the hon. member for Foothills that if he wishes to pursue this further, he should speak to the hon. member privately. Perhaps they could come to an arrangement which could work for both members.

Impact Assessment Act Private Members' Business

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375,

An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-375. Second reading

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375 ,

an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act. We are at a critical juncture where the decisions we make can shape our nation's trajectory towards prosperity and sustainability. Central to our discussion is a vital piece of legislation, common-sense Bill C-375 . The bill represents a golden opportunity to streamline how we approach environmental assessments, ensuring that crucial green projects can move forward swiftly and responsibly. It is about cutting through red tape to unleash Canada’s potential for growth while safeguarding our natural environment.

Bill C-375 is not just about amending current legislation; it is also about embracing a smarter, more collaborative way of working together as federal and provincial governments, joining forces to make Canada a better place. If we work together, we can propel our nation into a future where economic development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. Over the past eight years, our system has been bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that, while well-intentioned, often hinder progress rather than facilitate it.

The Liberal government's approach, as seen with Bill C-69 , better known by many as the “no more pipelines act”, has unfortunately contributed to this stagnation. That piece of legislation, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, exemplifies an overreach of federal jurisdiction into areas that should rightfully fall within provincial expertise. The result has been delays, confusion and a chilling effect on investment in green and infrastructural projects essential for our nation's future.

The Conservative Party has always championed the principles of efficiency, jurisdictional respect and the reduction of unnecessary governmental interference. Bill C-375 stands as a testament to these values, offering a practical solution to the challenges we face. By allowing for agreements between federal and provincial governments to exempt certain projects from the cumbersome process of repeated environmental assessments, we are proposing a way forward that would respect the expertise of provincial authorities and eliminate redundant federal oversight.

At the heart of our discussion on Bill C-375 lies a multitude of benefits that promise to reshape the landscape of environmental assessments and project development in Canada. The legislative amendment stands not just as a policy shift but also as a signal of progress, highlighting our commitment to efficiency, economic growth and environmental integrity. There are several tangible benefits the bill would bring to the table, ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians. The cornerstone of Bill C-375 is its ability to streamline the environmental assessment process.

By allowing federal and provincial governments to work closely together, we can eliminate redundant evaluations, ensuring that projects do not get tangled in a web of bureaucratic red tape. This approach would not only speed up the approval process but also conserve valuable resources. It would be a common-sense step toward making government operations leaner and more effective, directly translating into quicker turnarounds for project commencements.

This efficiency is critical for maintaining Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage, especially in attracting investments in green technology and infrastructure. An immediate advantage of streamlined assessments would be the acceleration of project approvals. This benefit cannot be overstated. By reducing the time it takes for projects to clear regulatory hurdles, we would open the door to wider economic opportunities that come with new infrastructure and technology investments.

These projects are not just about immediate economic gains; they are also about laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth. Developers and provinces could move forward with greater confidence, knowing that their initiatives would not be indefinitely delayed by the bureaucratic process. This predictability would be invaluable for planning and executing projects that can significantly contribute to our economy and our environmental goals. Furthermore, fiscal responsibility is a principle that guides our goals for proper governance, and Bill C-375 is aligned with that aspect.

By avoiding duplication in environmental assessments, we would be poised to save significant amounts of public funds. These savings would stem from reduced administrative costs and the more efficient use of resources. While it is challenging to put an exact figure on these savings, the financial implications are clear and substantial. These funds could be redirected to other pressing needs, such as health care, education or further environmental conservation efforts, maximizing the impact of every taxpayer dollar.

(1200) Perhaps one of the most profound benefits of Bill C-375 would be the emphasis it places on collaboration and respect for provincial expertise. Canada's provinces and territories are diverse, each with its unique environmental landscape and economic context. This diversity demands a tailored approach to environmental assessments, one that respects the knowledge and capabilities of provincial authorities.

The Speaker :

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Business of the House

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to the second reading stage of Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill be deemed put, any recorded divisions be deemed requested and take place immediately following the disposal of the motion related to the business of supply later this day, after which the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day, and that the debate pursuant to Standing Order 38 not take place.

[ Translation ]

The Speaker :

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

Government Orders Business of Supply

(1205) [ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Canada's Actions to Promote Peace in the Middle East

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

moved: Motion

That, given that,

(

i) the situation in the Middle East is devastating to many Canadians, particularly those with friends and family members in the region,

(ii) the death toll in Gaza has surpassed 30,000, with 70% of the victims women and children,

(iii) the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7, 2023, killed nearly 1,200 people and over 100 hostages remain in Hamas captivity,

(iv) millions of residents of Gaza are displaced and at risk of starvation, death, and disease, and Gaza is currently the most dangerous place in the world to be a child,

(

v) the United Nations reports over 70 per cent of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, including homes, hospitals, schools, water and sanitation facilities, have been destroyed or severely damaged by Israeli military attacks,

(vi) on January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza,

(vii) Israelis are still at risk of attacks by Iran-backed terrorist groups including Hamas and Hezbollah,

(viii) the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months,

(ix) the casualties of the war on Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attack include Canadian citizens,

(

x) Canadian citizens remain trapped in Gaza, blocked from leaving,

(xi) Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Canadians have reported an increase in hate-motivated attacks and racism since October,

(xii) Palestinians and Israelis both deserve to live in peace, with full enjoyment of their human rights and democratic freedoms,

the House call on the government to:

(

a) demand an immediate ceasefire and the release of all hostages;

(

b) suspend all trade in military goods and technology with Israel and increase efforts to stop the illegal trade of arms, including to Hamas;

(

c) immediately reinstate funding and ensure long-term continued funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and support the independent investigation;

(

d) support the prosecution of all crimes and violations of international law committed in the region, and support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;

(

e) demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza;

(

f) ensure Canadians trapped in Gaza can reach safety in Canada and lift the arbitrary cap of 1,000 temporary resident visa applications;

(

g) ban extremist settlers from Canada, impose sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide, and maintain sanctions on Hamas leaders;

(

h) advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution; and

(

i) officially recognize the State of Palestine and maintain Canada’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace with its neighbours.

She said: Mr. Speaker, “If I must die, you must live to tell my story.” Those are the words of Refaat Alareer, who was killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza on December 6. I rise today in sorrow and in hope. For five months, we have watched in horror, as horror after horror has unfolded in Gaza and Israel. The stories and the images are shocking and heartbreaking. We have seen two peoples utterly traumatized by violence, death and terror.

We have seen the complete failure of the international community to stop the unfolding carnage in Gaza, and we are dismayed by the failure of Canada's Liberal government to stand up for what is right, for the rule of international law, for humanity and for peace. Canadians are horrified by a brutal assault on Gaza where over 30,000 civilians have been killed. They were horrified on October 7 by the vile terrorist attack on innocent civilians in Israel by Hamas terrorists, and they are horrified now by the way Netanyahu's extremist government has responded.

Canadians believe in peace and justice, not just for Palestinians or for Israelis, but for everyone. Canadians want our government to apply those values universally, regardless of the price, regardless of the situation. I know this because hundreds of thousands have written to me about the war in Gaza.

Canadians from every province and territory, of every faith and belief, have asked us to do the right thing and help stop this war, end arms sales to Israel, push for a ceasefire and for the release of all hostages, demand that Israel stop denying humanitarian aid, and seek peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis. Instead, the government has abdicated its responsibility by ignoring, or worse, rejecting, international law, tearing apart the global moral fabric that Canada has helped to construct over decades. It does not have to be this way.

Our NDP motion today sets out specific actions that would work toward peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis. Today, the Liberals and the Conservatives have an opportunity to join the NDP in upholding the values of Canadians to show that Palestinian lives matter as much as anyone's life matters, that Palestinian rights are human rights and that children, all children, deserve justice. We are witnessing the collapse of the rules-based international order in Gaza. Canada has the responsibility and the obligation under international law to prevent genocide where it may occur.

Canada has the responsibility to prevent ethnic cleansing, to condemn war crimes and to uphold international law, but that is not what is happening right now. While Canada rightfully condemns the attacks on Israelis, Liberals are not doing the same thing for Palestinians. In fact, Canada is openly hindering the progress at the International Court of Justice regarding the occupied territories. Canada's refusal to support the work of the ICJ regarding South Africa's claim, and its refusal to urge Israel to comply with provisional orders, is shocking.

Professor Ardi Imseis told our foreign affairs committee, “Canada's declared commitment to the rules-based international legal order is crucial to maintaining its moral standing in the world”, going on to say that commitment “must both be and be seen by others to be credible.” We are fast losing our credibility. It is very clear to Canadians, to Palestinians, to many Israelis fighting for peace and to the rest of the world that Canada currently holds a double standard when it comes to the question of Israel and Palestine in international law.

This month, the UN warned that all arms exports to Israel must stop immediately. They specifically called out Canada for its military trade with Israel. The NDP has been calling for this for years, even prior to October 7 and this latest war on Gaza, because of very serious human rights abuses throughout Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. The minister has an obligation under the arms trade treaty not to approve export permits for military goods and technology where there is a substantial risk of human rights abuses. This is Canadian law.

(1210) Over the past decade, the NDP has been the only party that has called for reform to Canada's arms export system, yet the Liberals do nothing. Last week, a 13-year-old boy was shot to death in East Jerusalem after lighting fireworks. In a moment of joy and play, this child was killed. The Israeli minister of national security Ben-Gvir, the same minister who is arming extremist settlers with assault rifles, saluted the officer who killed this child. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have demanded that the Government of Canada impose an arms embargo on Israel.

How can Canada continue to engage in that kind of trade while children continue to be killed and extremist ministers of Netanyahu's government encourage this violence? Canada must do more to end the illegal arms smuggling to Hamas and other groups that threaten peace and security. We have called out Canada to do this, to stop this, not just for Hamas, and not just for Haiti, but also for the Sahel, and for other regions in the world where arms are ending up in the hands of people who are terrorizing civilians. More than 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed in Gaza, including more than 13,000 children.

More children have been killed in Gaza in four months than in four years of conflict worldwide, more than the rest of all wars combined over four years. Thousands more are suffering devastating injuries and loss. In Gaza, medical teams have added a new acronym to their vocabulary. It is WCNSF, which stands for “wounded child, no surviving family”. Ten-year-old Yousef aI-Dawi dreams of resting his head in his mother's hands, of going swimming with his brother and of going on walks with his father, but the bomb that fell on his family's home killed them all. This child is not Hamas.

The trauma felt by this generation of children will last a lifetime. Save the Children says that severe mental harm on Palestinian children in Gaza has increased exponentially over the past months, and now 1.1 million children in Gaza are starving to death. Families are foraging for food left by rats. Children scrape flour off the dirt on the street. How can we let this happen? How can we abandon the very principles of law and justice?

This is the mass starvation of an entire people, and instead of pushing Israel to let humanitarian trucks in, trucks blocked at the border by Israel and the extremist settlers, we are participating in aid drops. Aid drops are the most ineffective, inefficient way to deliver aid. Drops have already killed people on the ground. They cannot possibly alleviate the level of starvation we are seeing in Gaza. These children who are starving are not Hamas. The choice to refuse aid to these children is political. The forced starvation of children is political. It is against international law.

The Médecins Sans Frontières told the UN Security Council in February that Israeli forces have attacked their convoys, detained their staff and bulldozed their vehicles, and hospitals have been bombed and raided. At least 165 UNRWA staff have been killed in Gaza since October. That is the largest number of UN staff in history. These are aid workers who have been killed. There are allegations that Israeli soldiers tortured Palestinian medical staff from Nasser Hospital. The United Kingdom has asked for an investigation, but where is Canada?

As we speak, 1.5 million people are trapped in Rafah, and Israel's defence minister has said that a ground invasion could happen any day, a ground invasion against the most vulnerable people in the world, people starving to death, people with nowhere else to go. Last week I met with two Canadian heroes, Dr. Alvi and Dr. Ge. These two physicians went to Gaza last month to offer primary care. What they bore witness to is absolutely horrifying. There are patients living in appalling conditions and a lack of medicine and anaesthesia.

There are pregnant women who have no prenatal or postnatal care, and mothers are so malnourished they cannot produce breast milk.

(1215) There are mothers hemorrhaging because of treatable iron deficiency. There are children with gunshot wounds to the head and neck, and children so severely malnourished that they are skin and bones. Babies are unable to survive, dying before they even have a chance of life. There are thousands of bodies under the rubble that have not even been counted yet. Gaza is facing an overwhelming crisis of malnutrition, lack of water and shelter, all while the bombs continue to fall. I need to take a moment to address some of the concerns I have heard about the part of the NDP motion that calls on Canada to recognize a Palestinian state. In 2006, Rashid Khalidi wrote:

Certainly the aspirations of the Palestinians to live as a sovereign people in their own land are likely to be further denied, for a time at least and perhaps lastingly....

It will certainly not improve if there is a continuing refusal to look honestly at what has happened in this small land...and especially at how repeatedly forcing the Palestinians into an impossible corner, into an iron cage, has brought, and ultimately can bring, no lasting good to anyone.

He wrote that 18 years ago and, today, we are further away from a two-state solution. We are in the most dangerous and difficult moment for Palestine and Israel. Netanyahu has said that he will not allow the recognition of a Palestinian state. His government continues to support the construction of illegal settlements eating away at Palestinian land. In January, I travelled to the West Bank, East Jerusalem to Jordan, to meet with Palestinian families, to meet with progressive Israeli groups and humanitarians to understand what they were feeling during this terrible crisis.

I have worked in many difficult contexts in my career, and this was the most devastating I have ever seen. Now is the time to recognize Palestine. The United States and the United Kingdom have both signalled that they are looking at ways to formally recognize the state of Palestine. Last week, the prime minister of Spain said that he would ask the Spanish Parliament to recognize the Palestinian state, and already 139 United Nation member states recognize Palestine. It is beyond time for Canada to join with like-minded states and move this forward.

This month, the Canadian Jewish organization JSpace released an important policy brief by Maytal Kowalski and former ambassador to Israel Jon Allen, which stated, “we call on the Canadian government to unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine despite no such recognition by Israel. By doing so...and in lock-step with our allies, we believe that such a move can help accelerate a much needed diplomatic process to revive two-state negotiations.” Our NDP motion does not mean Canada would be recognizing Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization and it is not the government of Gaza. In fact, it is far from it.

We are simply asking Canadians to do what other states have done; that is to recognize that a two-state solution requires the recognition of two states, accelerate the diplomatic process and stop using the denial of Palestinian statehood as an excuse to not support proceeding at the International Criminal Court. Over 100 hostages remain in Hamas captivity. This is devastating for their families, whose profound grief I cannot possibly understand. Since October 7, we have been united in our demand for the return of the hostages, and Hamas must be prosecuted for attacks, crimes and kidnappings.

That is why the NDP supports bringing the perpetrators to justice at the International Criminal Court, as called for by the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. However, to do that, Canada needs to support and recognize the court's jurisdiction. Every day, the families of the hostages protest in Tel Aviv, calling for a ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Every day, the families of the hostages call on the Netanyahu government to stop abandoning their loved ones. They are met by extremists like Minister Smotrich who tells them that their loved ones being held by Hamas are not the priority.

They are hit with water cannons while protesting in the streets. Imagine the pain and grief they feel as they are abandoned by their own government, and are instead witnessing this horrific war against people who are not responsible for what Hamas has done.

(1220) I know that these past months have been incredibly painful for Canadians, for Jewish Canadians and for Jews around the world. The pain and the trauma felt by many in the Jewish community is very real. Canadians fear and decry rising incidents of hate in our communities. We need the federal government to do more to fight anti-Semitism, anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia. How do we find hope against despair? How do we build security while acknowledging the trauma of so many people?

We must look to the helpers, the many doctors of Gaza who continue to go to work, despite their families having been killed and their homes destroyed; the journalists risking their lives to report the horror of this war; the peacebuilders like Standing Together, a grassroots movement mobilizing Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel in pursuit of peace, equality and social justice. They have a simple message, “There is another way....

The occupation of the West Bank and the blockade on Gaza must end - not only because it is brutal and oppressive for Palestinians - but also because it does not guarantee any long-term safety for Israelis.” Yotam Kipnis, whose parents were murdered by Hamas on October 7, spends his days trying to get aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering. Wheels of Hope facilitated getting patients from Gaza to Israel hospitals, a program that Canadian Israeli Vivian Silver participated in before she was murdered by Hamas.

Vivian Silver's son says, “the issues may be huge and complex, but the solution for peace is very simple.” It is through the work of peacebuilding organizations, human rights advocates, humanitarian workers and grassroots collectives that embrace compassion and empathy for one another that we will find that hope. It is through the work of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are calling for a ceasefire, the release of the hostages, an arms embargo and humanitarian assistance. This is where we find hope. We must rise in this moment to strive for humanity, to hold space for each other's pain and trauma.

We must understand that we are not separate, but we are all part of one another. Jewish Canadian organization JSpace has said that our NDP motion is “a strong first step for Canada to take in leading toward an end to the war and a negotiated two-state solution. It is easy to talk about what can't be done. Yasher Koach to those who propose what can be done.” That is what we are doing today. We are proposing that which can be done to build a real future for Palestinians and Israelis so that they can live freely in peace, with the full recognition of their dignity and their human rights.

I am going to tell a story now. It is very difficult, but it is important that we tell it. Six-year-old Hind Rajab was with family members as they attempted to flee Israeli forces and their car came under fire in Gaza City. Her family members were killed. Hind was trapped in the vehicle and surrounded by her dead relatives. She managed to reach the emergency hotline of the Palestine Red Crescent. “I’m so scared, please come” were some of the last words she said in a call to rescuers.

For three hours she pleaded with the Red Crescent for help, as the aid workers waited to be given permission by Israel to access Hind's location. Hind was afraid of the dark. The ambulance was finally granted permission from Israel, but once it got close to her location it came under fire. The ambulance was found days later, only metres away from Hind's family's car, the ambulance crew dead.

Six-year-old Hind died alone in that car afraid, surrounded by the bodies of her dead relatives. “I'm so scared, please come”, she said, “please come.” I am telling members this story today because none of us can say that we did not know. We do know. The failure of Canadians to face this horror is shameful. It is not political inaction, but complicity, and it does not have to continue. The NDP motion today asks the House to recommend nine steps that Canada could take today to help end this war and save the lives of children. This is not complicated.

Over and again we have risen in the House, demanding an end to Canada's arms sales to Israel and support for humanitarian efforts. Day after day, week after week, New Democrats have demanded that the government pursue peace and justice, while in Gaza the bombs continue to fall. How many more bombs must fall? How many more children must die before the government finally does what is right?

(1225) Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one thing the member said, which is that we are not separate, that we are all part of one another. I agree 100%. On the story you gave about Hind dying in the car, we all recognize that this is absolutely horrendous. I would like to hear from you on how you feel this motion will actually make a difference in alleviating the suffering of these people right now? It is a non-binding motion in the House of Commons of Canada. She has said that we are not separate.

Does she feel that this motion, and having members vote on this, will cause greater division, not only in the House but, more important, among Canadians at a time where Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are on the rise? We are all very concerned about unity. I think everyone—

The Deputy Speaker :

I know the hon. member realized her mistake of not going through the Chair when she was asking her question. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

(1230) Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we must stand for peace, we must stand for justice and we must uphold international law. What the member is suggesting is that children around the world should die, should be killed, should starve to death and that the Canadian Parliament should not act, should not take steps to put things into place that would help. It is vitally important that this Parliament sends a clear message that, as Canadians, we believe in the rights of all people. We believe in Palestinian human rights. We believe in Israeli human rights. We believe that the international rule of law needs to be adhered to. We need to have the bravery and courage to say that in this place.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on October 7, Hamas murdered, raped and tortured thousands. It murdered thousands of people. This motion does not hold Hamas accountable in any way. It does not call for the surrender of Hamas, or for the putting down of its arms or even for the return of those hostages in any meaningful way. Why is the member rewarding Hamas terrorists for their October 7 massacre in the House of Commons? She should be ashamed of herself.

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The statement that the member made in response to my question, first, did not answer my question, but second, accused me—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker :

I ask all members to be judicious in the discussion today. For the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, that is not necessarily a point of order; it is a part of debate. However, I will allow the hon. member, if it is a point of order, to represent that point of order. The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy :

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made statements regarding me that I have not said and that do not reference anything I have said, and she was impugning my motive, which is completely unacceptable in the House.

The Deputy Speaker :

That is descending into debate. Again, it is not a point of order. The hon. member may want to discuss it with the House leader as a question of privilege. There are a number of processes for it, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important throughout this debate, because it is going to be a very emotional debate, no doubt, to remember that it is inappropriate for any member on any side to impute the motives of another member. Making a statement that one member is in favour or suggesting in any fashion that they are in favour of children being killed is inappropriate and unparliamentary. I would suggest it does nothing to maintain decorum. I say that for what it is worth. It is something that needs to be taken into consideration throughout the day.

The Deputy Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for the statement. The hon. member for Victoria is rising on the same point.

Ms. Laurel Collins :

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said “impute the motives”. That is the word they keep using. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

The Deputy Speaker :

I think “impugn” is what we are looking for, so I appreciate the discussion. I will proceed. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona had the floor.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, clearly my colleague has not read the motion and did not listen to my speech. I was very clear that what Hamas did on October 7 is appalling. It is written into our motion what actions we are calling for with regard to Hamas. I spoke very clearly about that, so if she would like me to explain the motion to her again, perhaps the Speaker could read it for her again. However, because she did ask me that, I just want to finish off with a poem from Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, who wrote The War Will End :

The war will end The leaders will shake hands The old woman will keep waiting for her martyred son That girl will wait for her beloved husband And those children will wait for their heroic father I don't know who sold our homeland But I saw who paid the price.

The War Will End

(1235) [ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the motion. I would like the member to give us more information on the last part, which aims to recognize Palestine as a state, as several other countries have done. We tabled a motion to that effect a few years ago, but we did not have enough support. I would also like the member to tell us about her proposal to try and put an end to the occupation and settlements in Palestine's occupied territories. How can recognizing the Palestinian state, as part of a two-state solution, help move towards resolving the conflict?

[ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson :

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.

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for highlighting that 139 states already recognize Palestine and also for sharing that JSpace states that this move can help accelerate a diplomatic process. I wanted to know why the acceleration matters so much.

Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her important work in the House. Right now what we are seeing is tens of thousands of innocent civilians losing their lives. Over 13,000 children have lost their lives. Right now, today, at this moment, there is a population facing starvation. They are facing starvation in 2024, and it is not starvation because there is no food. The food is at the border rotting in trucks instead of getting into the bellies of innocent children. We need to do everything we can to stop the war and to alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians.

This is why part of our motion is to make sure there is a ceasefire and to make sure we stop selling arms to Israel. The final piece, recognition of Palestine as a state, is so that we can build toward this. It is so that the world can work together and we can build toward a more peaceful outcome into the future. Ultimately, what we are all looking for is a secure and safe future for Palestinians and Israelis.

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, at a time when the number of people facing catastrophic hunger in the Gaza Strip is now 1.1 million, and at a time when the International Court of Justice has already ruled for the State of Israel to take six immediate steps to avoid acts of genocide, today's motion from the NDP is a critical one to compel the government to align its actions with its so-called calls for a ceasefire. It is why Greens have long supported the calls in today's motion. I applaud the member for Edmonton Strathcona for her courage in bringing it to the floor of the House.

I wonder if she could further comment on how important it is that we move in this critical moment to have Canada take steps to align its calls with that which the ICJ and others around the world have already called for.

(1240) Ms. Heather McPherson :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has long spoken in the House about the need for peace in the Middle East and for the rights of Israeli and Palestinian people. This moment in time is pivotal. It is vital. It is vital that we take the steps we can now, that we work with our allies and that we signal to the international community that human rights matter and they matter wherever those human rights are being attacked. Palestinian human rights are not less than those of any other person. Children, regardless of where those children live, deserve to grow up and they deserve to have enough food to eat.

Think about the acronym “wounded child, no surviving family”. That is why we need to do more. It is why we need to do more right now.

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I welcome debate during this pivotal moment for the region and the world. I rise having just returned from visiting the Middle East, where I met with my counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Israel and also the Palestinian authority. Of course, the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and the path toward peace was at the top of our agenda. These conversations were not always easy. We do not all share the same perspectives, but we all share the goal of peace and stability in the region so we must be pragmatic and find a way forward together.

While in Israel, we visited Yad Vashem, the memorial dedicated to the victims of the Holocaust, one of the world's darkest chapters. It is important to remember that the persecution of the Jewish people did not start or end with the Holocaust. Before the creation of Israel, Jewish communities around the world struggled to find a place to call home, a place where they could feel safe, a place where they could live in security, a place where their human rights would be respected and a place where they could live with dignity, have a family and build a better future for their loved ones without fear.

For the Jewish people, Israel is that home. [ Translation ] On October 7, Israelis' sense of security and confidence in their institutions was shaken; for many, it was shattered. The Hamas terrorist attack was the deadliest in Israel's 76-year history. Hamas killed 1,200 people and kidnapped more than 240. Some 134 remain in captivity in Gaza. That means 134 families are desperately awaiting their return so they can hold them tight. Every single person in Israel knows someone, or knows someone who knows someone, who was killed or kidnapped on that fateful day.

The entire country bears the weight of that shared trauma. Therefore, we once again unequivocally condemn Hamas for its October 7 terrorist attacks. [ English ] While in Israel, we also travelled south to kibbutz Kfar Aza, one of the first communities to be attacked by Hamas on October 7. There, I met Ayelet, the mother of Netta, a Canadian who was killed protecting his fiancée. Ayelet walked us through her neighbourhood and recounted the agonizing massacre of October 7.

She described the chaos of not understanding what was happening, of friends and family breathlessly running from house to house, passing those that had been set on fire, looking for their loved ones. However, in many cases, it was too late; they had already been killed. While we bore witness to the horrors of October 7, we could hear and feel the shudder of bombs falling onto Gaza nearby, followed by the unmistakable peppering of gunfire. In that moment, the duality of the tragedy befalling the Israeli and Palestinian people was profound. It was a moment that I will forever remember.

Since October 7, more than 31,000 Palestinians have now been killed in Gaza. Over 70% of these people are women and children. There are 1.7 million Palestinians displaced, and even more at risk of starvation, disease and death. I sat down with humanitarian workers who described the crisis in Gaza as the worst they have seen in their careers.

They have witnessed mothers undergoing C-sections without anaesthesia, the desperation of children asking for food as cars pass by and the despair of children who are now orphans. (1245) [ Translation ] It is safe to say that every Palestinian family tree has lost entire branches to the violence that has occurred since October 7. That is clear from our conversations in Ramallah. In the midst of this tragedy, extremist settlers are subjecting Palestinians in the West Bank to increasingly frequent and intense violence.

These violent acts alone have cost the lives of over 300 Palestinians and displaced 1,000 more since October 7. One family we spoke to was forced from their home by Israeli settlers and denied access to the family farm they depend on for their survival.

We strongly oppose this violence, and we will impose sanctions on those responsible for it. [ English ] Palestinians continue to struggle for their self-determination and for the creation of a Palestinian state, a state where they could feel safe, where they could live in security, where their human rights would be respected and where they could live with dignity, could have a family and could build a better future for their kids. Palestinians struggle for a home of their own. This crisis has exposed cracks and has deepened the wounds of society on both sides. It is fuelled by dehumanization.

When we do not see the humanity of others, injustice falls onto the shoulders of innocents. This pain has extended throughout the region and here at home. In Canada, we mourn the loss of eight Canadians killed on October 7. Countless Canadian families mourn the loss of loved ones in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. In Canada and around the world, we have witnessed a sharp rise of anti-Semitism, as well as a sharp rise of Islamophobia. Muslim and Jewish communities are targets of physical and verbal attacks.

They have been harassed on streets and online, barred from places of worship and made to feel unsafe in their schools. This is not the promise of our country. Our government will continue to strongly denounce and condemn all forms of discrimination and racism, which have no place in Canada. Beyond the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, this conflict has polarized our society and is testing the strength of our social cohesion. We are entangled in a web of devastation, and we face pressure to pick sides. We are forced to believe that if we speak up for one, of course, surely, we are against the other.

For us, it is not that simple. [ Translation ] Given the current situation, I doubt there will be a winner. There will be only victims and survivors left to forever mourn their losses. With the current level of destruction taking place, it will take years to rebuild everything. Rebuilding Gaza will require our help. Canada will be there. We will be there to rebuild the health care system in Gaza, especially the children's hospitals. It will take decades, if not generations, for the consequences of the trauma experienced by Israelis and Palestinians alike to emerge and be treated.

That is why, in this tragedy, I will always stand on the side of human dignity and the protection of civilians, both Palestinian and Israeli. We owe it to Palestinians and Israelis alike, who have been abandoned for decades because no lasting solution to this conflict has been found. Besides this failure, terrorists and extremist voices are being heard from all sides. They are undermining the future of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is not to mention the broader implications throughout the Middle East. We do not have a choice.

We must do better. (1250) [ English ] In Canada, our position is rooted in three principles. First is the right for Israel to exist and, by extension, to defend itself in accordance with humanitarian law. Second is the protection of civilians. Third is the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. We fully recognize that these principles are in tension with each other right now, but we remain committed to all of them. The violence must end. An immediate humanitarian ceasefire is urgently needed. This ceasefire cannot be one-sided.

Of course, Hamas needs to lay down its weapons, and all hostages must be released. The need for humanitarian assistance in Gaza has never been greater. Rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian relief must be provided to civilians now. This is why Canada will participate in every single way to help. Due to the urgency of the situation, we have resumed funding to UNRWA while supporting efforts to reform the organization. We will contribute to the humanitarian sea corridor. We will support air drops. We recognize that this will not replace the urgent need for more access by land, and we will continue to press for it.

We are gravely concerned by Israel's plan for a ground military offensive into Rafah. About 1.5 million Palestinians are taking refuge in the area, including many of our citizens and their families. They have nowhere else to go. We have made it clear to the Israeli government that we urge them not to go down this path. [ Translation ] With respect to the International Court of Justice, we fully acknowledge that its interim measures are binding on both parties. The court was clear: Israel must ensure the provision of basic services and essential humanitarian aid and it must protect civilians.

As for exports of controlled goods to Israel, I would like to reiterate that Canada has a very strict export regime whereby each application is considered on a case-by-case basis. We have not issued any weapons permits per se since October 7. Given the rapidly developing situation on the ground, the Department of Foreign Affairs has not approved a permit since January 8, considering our inability to confirm that human rights are being upheld and, of course, that our export regime requirements would be met.

In conclusion, the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians is through a negotiated political solution. I believe that Canada has a role to play. We owe our diplomatic heritage to the likes of Lester B. Pearson, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien. That heritage centres on peacekeeping and bridge-building to promote negotiations.

Today, we have a responsibility to build on that tradition. [ English ] Canada will remain committed to a two-state solution, including the creation of a Palestinian state where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in peace, security and dignity. The long-term security of Israel, the normalization of diplomatic relations in the Arab world and the creation of a Palestinian state cannot be considered separately or in opposition to one another. They are intertwined. We must recognize this and act on it. We are committed to being pragmatic and to doing our part.

(1255) Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, we are in this situation where over 13,000 children have been killed and over 30,000 civilians have lost their lives. I know the minister speaks to her colleagues in other countries and to allies in the United States and in the United Kingdom. I have two questions for the minister at this pivotal moment when all Canadians are very much hoping the Liberal government will have the moral courage to do what Canadians across the country have been asking for. Has the minister reached out to leaders within the United States to push them, to urge them to do more to make sure that peace can happen in the Middle East? Will she be supporting our motion today?

Hon. Mélanie Joly :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her ongoing work. We do not always see eye to eye, but I know we can work together. When it comes to what is happening in the Middle East, of course, we are in close contact with different U.S. officials. I am in contact with my colleague, Tony Blinken, and I have also been in contact with many people in the White House. It is important that we get to a hostage deal. It is fundamental that hostages be released and that humanitarian aid gets to Gaza.

We are extremely frustrated with the fact that Hamas recently decided, before Ramadan, to not take the deal that was on the table. We urge all parties to get to a very important negotiation deal, because at the end of the day, we think that by releasing hostages, by getting humanitarian aid into Gaza and by getting to a humanitarian ceasefire, we will be able to get the temperature down, to stop the violence and, eventually, to get back to a much more sustainable peace for the region. That is fundamental for the region but, at the same time, it will also bring tensions down here in the country.

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks for Canada, but I did not hear the minister clearly state the Government of Canada's position on this motion. I think the Government of Canada has often, in the last several months, been unclear about its position on the conflict that has emerged between Israel and Hamas, so I will give the Minister of Foreign Affairs an opportunity to clearly state whether the government will be supporting or opposing the motion.

Hon. Mélanie Joly :

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my colleague from the NDP and I also say to my colleague from the Conservatives, of course, I appreciate working with the member; although, we do not always see eye to eye, but I very much respect his input. When it comes to our position, it has been clear. It is a position that many G7 foreign ministers have been expressing across the world, which is that we need a hostage deal. We need to make sure that we get to a humanitarian ceasefire and that humanitarian aid must get into Gaza. There are issues with the motion presented by the NDP.

We cannot change foreign policy based on an opposition motion. That being said, I would also like to know what the Conservative Party's position is.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mélanie Joly: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but to my colleagues who are shouting, I would like to know whether they are in favour of a ceasefire or not, when it comes to Gaza.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the minister's comments on what is a very sensitive issue. This is a heart-wrenching issue, which Canadians listen to virtually on a daily basis when they check in with the news and other types of forums. When we reflect on Canadian values, the speech I heard from the minister was very much a reflection of Canadian values. However, Canadians are having a difficult time, and we have seen an uptick in issues of racial incidents on all sides.

I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on how we can try to move forward and provide that sense of comfort that, as a government, we are taking a position in which Canadians can have that confidence in the government, particularly that we are working with our allied countries.

(1300) Hon. Mélanie Joly :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I did not get an answer from the Conservatives, and I am looking forward to getting one on the question of whether they are in favour of a humanitarian ceasefire or not.

Hon. Michael Chong: A humanitarian pause.

Hon. Mélanie Joly: Mr. Speaker, I am getting information that they are not. That being said, when it comes to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and dehumanization, we have to do a better job in this country, and that is the reality. At this point, a lot of people want us to condemn one side and not the other. We have to condemn both sides, and we have to help both sides to eventually get to an understanding that Israelis and Palestinians will have to live together in peace. As a country, we are there to help. We are an honest broker, and that is what Canada does.

That is what we have been doing since the Second World War, when Lester B. Pearson was there during the Suez Canal crisis to help with tensions in that region. The House has my promise that I will make sure, as the foreign affairs minister of this country, to keep the space for Canada to play a role in what could be consequential times in that region and in the world.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues and friends in the House. I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona , as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs , my colleague and friend. I am rather distressed. How can the government members vote against this motion? [ English ] Canadians want to see us, as elected people, reflect the conscience of this country, the heartbreak across this country and the cries to stand up and to not be on the wrong side of history as innocent civilians continue to be slaughtered. I could tweak the words of the motion before us; we all could.

However, I do not see how we can fail to be united, as Canadians would like to see and as Greens will be, in supporting the motion. I beg the minister to consider how important a signal it would be to the world that we vote together in support of peace, of humanitarian values, of the release and the freedom of the hostages and of all the individual elements of this excellent motion.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Mélanie Joly :

Mr. Speaker, I have great affection for my colleague. I want to reiterate that to her. I thank her for her work and her respect. I know that she is a great advocate for peace and solidarity, especially in times of crisis. I want to thank her for all her work. The government is very sensitive to this motion before Parliament. This motion is not perfect, but it is important. It seeks to offer a solution to this extremely devastating war, both on the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.

Of course, Canada is engaged in a constructive dialogue to ensure, as she said so well, that we bring people into the country, denounce the humanitarian disaster in Gaza and, at the same time, ensure that the innocent Israeli victims, the hostages, are released. We will continue to work with all parliamentarians in the House. My colleague can count on my collaboration in coming up with a solution here in the House.

[ English ]

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

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?

(1305) Hon. Mélanie Joly :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that, of course, we always stand up for justice and peace in this world. That is our foreign policy. That is what we do every day. Of course, when it comes to the Israel-Hamas issue, we believe in a two-state solution. We believe that we are, after this war, closer than ever to a two-state solution. Why? It is because, coming back from the region, what I heard is that many Arab countries would be interested in the normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel. Many Arab countries, in terms of Iran, want to make sure that Israel and the region are safe.

We believe in that. It is in the interests of the Government of Canada in general to make sure that is the case. This normalization, this security architecture for the region, must come also with the recognition of the state of Palestine. We must do the two together. This is sound foreign policy, and this is also what our closest allies in the world will continue to do. Canada will be leading that conversation.

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Thornhill . Today I speak on behalf of Conservatives. Conservatives, like everyone in this chamber, want to see an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. We are concerned about the loss of civilian life in Gaza, the loss of children, women and other civilians. We are equally concerned about the humanitarian crisis, the humanitarian needs of some two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. We are concerned about their access to food, water and the other basic necessities of life.

We condemn the atrocities of October 7, 2023, atrocities committed by Hamas against some 1,200 innocent Israeli civilians. Hamas committed these atrocities against these innocent women, men, children and babies, who were just civilians living their lives in their houses on that dark day of October 7. Conservatives assess that Hamas committed war crimes that day. We base that assessment on the evidence collected by reputable news organizations and western governments. Innocent civilians were raped and tortured. Children and babies were slaughtered. Civilians were beheaded and bodies were burned.

Hamas deliberately used techniques employed by ISIS. Conservatives also condemn the taking of 253 innocent civilians as hostages that day by Hamas, also a crime under international humanitarian law. Over half of these innocent civilians remain hostage, held by Hamas. This too is a war crime, a crime under the law of armed conflict. This is why we, as Conservatives, support humanitarian aid and humanitarian pauses for the Palestinian people in Gaza and why we support the State of Israel's right to defend itself in eliminating Hamas as a threat.

However, we cannot support providing humanitarian aid through an organization whose employees joined Hamas and participated in the October 7 atrocities. Humanitarian aid needs to be delivered through a different mechanism, through a different organization than that of UNRWA. There are those who say that UNRWA is the only organization that can possibly deliver aid on the ground to some two million Palestinians in Gaza. What happened to the creativity and the immense resources of the west? Seventy-six years ago, the west faced another similar humanitarian crisis of similar proportions.

Some two million West Berliners were trapped in a Soviet-occupied zone in Germany, blocked from receiving aid and the basic needs of life because of a blockade that had been set up by the Soviets. The west responded with creativity, and with far fewer resources than we have today, to help the people of West Berlin. The Berlin airlift of 1948-49 lasted for 15 months and provided the basic needs of life for two and a quarter million West Berliners.

At the time, there were plenty of people saying that it could not be done, plenty of naysayers saying that it was impossible to do, but our forebears in Ottawa, Washington and London decided otherwise. They came up with a creative way, with much more limited resources than we have today, to help the people of West Berlin.

Maybe an airlift is not the solution here, but surely the west, with much greater resources today, can use the same kind of creativity that we had 76 years ago to deliver humanitarian aid to the some two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip without having to use an organization that has been complicit with Hamas. Conservatives support providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, but not through UNRWA. We also support the right of the State of Israel to defend itself against Hamas, which committed the most unspeakable atrocities on October 7.

We should not forget the genesis of this most recent conflict. The genesis is Hamas and its atrocities of October 7. Hamas is what we should be focused on, not the State of Israel. Hamas is the only party to this conflict that is to blame for this conflict, that started this conflict and that can end this conflict. Hamas, today, can unconditionally surrender, release all of the remaining 130 or so hostages and lay down all its arms.

(1310) Let us not forget it was this Parliament and the Government of Canada that decided Hamas is a terrorist entity. The decision was made by Parliament to empower the Government of Canada, through the Criminal Code, to designate entities as terrorists. The Government of Canada has taken the decision to list Hamas as a terrorist entity, and we should not forget that this reflects the will of the Canadian people as expressed through Parliament and through the Government of Canada. Hamas is at fault for October 7. Hamas is the one who, on October 7, broke a ceasefire.

Hamas is responsible for the greatest loss of Jewish civilian life since the Shoah, the Holocaust. Hamas is the reason Israel has executed on its right under international law and on its responsibility to protect its people from this horrendous threat. Conservatives support Canada's long-standing position of a two-state solution, a state of Palestine living in peace, security and prosperity next to the State of Israel.

However, this cannot be achieved through some sort of unilateral declaration in the House of Commons, just like we cannot declare in this House of Commons that an authoritarian state is suddenly a democracy. I would think that in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in the aftermath of the second war in Iraq and in the aftermath of what happened in Afghanistan several years ago, we would understand that simply declaring a democracy does not result in one. Democracy is not the result of a declaration.

It is the result of a long, arduous process that can take months, if not years, of negotiations for a constitution that results in democratic institutions that have popular support. It is only then that one can have a democracy and that one can have democratic elections that result in the selection of leaders who govern. Similarly, a two-state solution cannot be achieved just by a declaration.

It can only be achieved through a long, arduous process that will take months, if not years, of negotiations between the two parties at hand: the State of Israel and representatives of the Palestinian people, representatives who have the popular support of the Palestinian people, who have renounced violence and terrorism and who have accepted the rules-based international order.

Let me finish by saying that Conservatives support the aspirations of the Palestinian people to have their own state, a Palestinian state that would join the community of nations around the world and would allow the Palestinian people to fulfill their hopes and dreams, a Palestinian state that would contribute to the region's peace and security, like the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has done and like other states have done in the region, a Palestinian state that would give hope, opportunity and ever-increasing prosperity to the millions of Palestinians living in the region and a Palestinian state no longer ruled by Hamas and other terrorist entities that use violence as a means to an end and that have used the Palestinian people for their own enrichment, their own control and their own ends.

Conservatives support the State of Israel. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. It has the right to defend itself and has the right to use all legal means necessary under the law of armed conflict to ensure its peace and security. Conservatives see Israel as a democratic partner in the Middle East. Israel, like Ukraine, is at the front line of a clash between a rising authoritarianism backed by states like the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, and democracies like Ukraine and the State of Israel.

In this rising clash between two very different models of governance, there is no doubt where Canada's interests and Canada's values lie. We stand with liberal democracies like Ukraine and like the State of Israel. For all these reasons, Conservatives will not be supporting the motion before the House.

(1315) Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the recognition and the value of international law. Does he believe international law applies in all cases? Does he believe the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, institutions Canada has supported and has shown respect for, should be respected? Does he believe those provisional measures that have been put in place against the Government of Israel should be adhered to?

Does he believe the Canadian government should urge its friends within Israel to in fact stick with those provisional measures despite the fact that right now they continue to bomb innocent civilians, they continue to kill children and we continue to see the death toll of people who are innocent go up?

Hon. Michael Chong :

Mr. Speaker, international humanitarian law, in other words the law of armed conflict, makes it clear that what Hamas did on October 7, 2023, was war crimes. The taking of hostages is a war crime. I think we all acknowledge that hostages were taken. The raping, murdering and targeting, deliberately, of civilians is a war crime. This has been assessed by reputable organizations. What I am not aware of is any reputable organization's, including the International Court of Justice's, assessing that Israel has committed a war crime. States have the right to defend themselves and to use force to defend themselves.

They have the right to target military infrastructure and the right to eliminate terrorist entities like Hamas that pose a threat to the safety and security of their own citizens. I am not aware of any international organization, the UN or any high court that has assessed that the State of Israel has committed war crimes since October 7, 2023.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, what saddens me is the fact that, with such an important issue that is taking place in the world today, as a group of parliamentarians we are having to debate a motion of this nature. I would rather have seen the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs try to build some form of consensus and then, through that consensus, bring it to the floor of the House of Commons. I think there is a lot to be said about unity.

At a time when Canadians are looking for leadership on issues such as this that are having such a profound impact, can the member opposite give any sort of indication whether there was any dialogue between him and the New Democratic Party with respect to the motion we have before us today? Was there any form of an attempt to do something of this nature in the standing committee, as opposed to trying to politicize the issue inside the chamber?

Hon. Michael Chong :

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that Conservatives have supported Canada's long-standing position on the State of Israel. That position calls for a negotiated settlement between the two parties, the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, that would arrive at a two-state solution.

Conservatives also support a long-standing position that was held by the previous Liberal government and the previous Conservative government, a policy developed by Irwin Cotler, Pierre Pettigrew and then prime minister Paul Martin that said that we were not going to vote in favour of resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly that singled out the State of Israel for targeting.

We support Canada's returning to that long-standing position at the UN, where resolutions that single out the State of Israel would be voted against by Canada in order to indicate that we are not supportive of an anti-Semitic approach that we often see, where the Jewish people or the State of Israel is singled out for special condemnation when there are plenty of other cases around the world in which there are actual cases of human rights violations and actual cases to be condemned but that go ignored.

(1320) Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, despite the many positions of the Government of Canada, the motion is not about a ceasefire; the motion is about rewarding Hamas for its massacre. The motion is about a vote to reward the murder, rape and kidnapping of Israelis, and the motion is deeply irresponsible for Parliament. It is hard to explain and express the complex feelings of shock, fear and anger felt by thousands across the country who are being subjected to the motion today.

It would have been enough if they were shocked by the public displays of blatant anti-Semitism in our streets, driven entirely by the irresponsible rhetoric in the House. It would have been enough if they were fearful for what lies ahead in Canada. It would have been enough if they were only angry and betrayed by the government's duplicitous attempt to be all things to all people, like we just heard.

However, today the blind sellout to the forces of evil at home and abroad is what should be a wake-up call like no other to every freedom-loving Canadian who has built any piece of this country and who enjoys everything that those before us built for us. The motion would be a ceasefire motion if it called for Hamas to lay down its arms, to surrender and to immediately return every single hostage, to bring them home. It is not that.

In the face of some of the world's most vile anti-Semitism, and in the wake of the deadliest day for the Jews since the Holocaust, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister held captive by its NDP overlords are giving in to terror. The motion before us is only the latest example of that. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an unprovoked and unjustified attack on innocent civilians in Israel, where hundreds of men and women, young and old, were raped, murdered, tortured and taken hostage. More than 100 of those hostages are still being held captive.

The motion is not only an abandonment of the ongoing fight to bring those hostages home; it is also an abandonment of our ally in Israel. More than that, it is a blind giveaway to Hamas terrorists and those who seek to undermine democracy, freedom and the rule of law in the Middle East and in the western world. It is an insult to everyone who lost a family member in the attack and to anyone who witnesses a nation, an ally, paralyzed by forces so barbaric, so evil, that discussing the motion today flies in the face of civilization and the future of a Palestinian people free of Hamas.

There is a reason that Canada has a long-standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. It is that it rewards barbarism, and worse that it provides an incentive for that barbarism to continue and even escalate. I want members of the chamber to think long and hard about what many concessions in the motion mean for peace. In the short term they mean that Hamas would remain intact. They mean that no more members of Hamas would be brought to justice. They mean that no more hostages would likely be brought home. In the long run they mean that Hamas would be rewarded for its decision to attack a democratic nation.

They mean that our lost decade of foreign policy in this country would be culminated by a recognition of a state ruled by terror instead of what was once a long-established consensus of Canadian foreign policy by Liberal governments before this one that says that there should be a negotiated solution among parties. The Government of Canada supports parties that want to see a future of two states living side by side in peace and security in a negotiated settlement.

It is shocking and shameful that elected representatives here in this place would support such a dead giveaway to a group literally defined as terrorists by Canadian law. Imagine a future for the Palestinian people free of Hamas. We do not have to imagine it; we see it in the success of peaceful gulf states whose raison d'être is not the annihilation of the other or a perverse nihilism of their own people. We should not be surprised, however. After eight years of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government, our nation has abandoned almost every princip