SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Oct/16/23 11:22:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that any measures that will spare civilian lives must be considered and, ideally, implemented by Israel, because Hamas cannot be expected to do so. I nevertheless remain realistic. If we want to prevent this from happening again in the future, if we want to entertain the prospect of peace, Hamas also must be eliminated. If there were some way to do this without any loss of human life, it would have been done by now. That is why I am calling for Israel to conduct the strictest possible analysis of everything that can be done to minimize civilian casualties in accordance with humanitarian law.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/16/23 11:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her intervention in the House today. I am sorry, but I am not going to speak in French. It is a very late night and the topic is very difficult for me. One of the things that I have been thinking about is that today we have been talking about how Hamas needs to be defeated. I know that the member is on the defence committee. We have babies in incubators in Gaza. We have doctors who refuse to leave those babies because, obviously, the children are trapped there, and they know they may die. The people who are most able likely to leave the territory are in fact members of Hamas, the very terrorists we should be trying to target. The people least able to leave Gaza right now are the elderly, the infirm, the children, the babies and people in the hospital. I am struggling to understand why anyone in this place thinks that bombing Gaza right now would not cause more harm to those people than to the terrorists.

182 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Oct/16/23 11:24:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for her always rousing pleas on behalf of civilians and all those who are in difficult situations, who are experiencing war. I know she cares a lot about that, and I thank her for her work in that regard. I do not claim to have an answer for her, unfortunately, and I think that it would be wrong for anyone, particularly any outsider, to claim that they have an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which did not start just a few days ago but has been going on for a long time now. In this context, I cannot imagine, as an outsider myself, coming in and imposing a solution. That is why I was careful not to do so in my speech. I was careful not to impose a solution but to instead suggest limits for a government. I want to make the distinction here between the Government of Israel and the people of Israel because, right now, as we know, the government is more right-wing than it has ever been. We can hope that, in the near future, both Hamas and the Government of Israel will have to make changes. In that context, I was careful not to suggest a solution. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to do so. Instead, I chose to make suggestions that would set limits on the actions taken by Israel. What we are asking Israel to do is to minimize as much as possible anything that could lead to the loss of civilian life. If that involves a ceasefire, then all the better. I hope that the analysis will be done because I would like to believe that Israel, unlike Hamas, takes absolutely no pleasure in killing innocent civilians. That is why I am not responding directly to my colleague's question. I am sad to do so because, personally, I was hoping for a ceasefire. However, I am not in a position to impose a solution to a very complex conflict.

347 words

All Topics

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 11:26:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague for her nuanced speech, nuance that is sorely lacking when we look at the state of public discourse on this unspeakable strategy that has unfolded in the Middle East since October 7. I just want to make a few comments before asking my question. I think that my colleague is exactly right when she says that we must eliminate Hamas, of which far too many Israelis and Palestinians are victims. They have been stuck with this terrorist group for 17 years now without any opportunity to make a choice. The Palestinians are paying the price for this terrorist group, Hamas. I also believe that she is exactly right when she says, in her response, that Israel has a heavy responsibility with respect to the methods it resorts to and that it must also respect international humanitarian law. We see that with 3,000 victims in Gaza and more than 1,000 Israeli victims: Violence breeds violence. I think we need to be careful to ensure that the actions that are taken do not further widen the gap that has been widening for decades. I have a question for her. I will echo what Jean‑François Lépine said on the show Tout le monde en parle on Sunday evening. He said that if there is one thing that has come out of what is happening in Israel and Gaza, it is that the status quo cannot work. There needs to be a two-state solution, two viable states. Does my colleague agree with that statement?

268 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Oct/16/23 11:28:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. From the outside, the two-state solution is the one I see as the best, but, once again, this is with all the nuance and reserve one must have when perceiving the conflict from the outside. As has been said several times this evening, the two-state solution is not possible as long as Hamas still exists, hence the importance of eliminating Hamas. To build on a point from the previous question, one of the fears associated with an immediate ceasefire, for example, is that the problem will simply be put off until later. If steps are not taken to eliminate Hamas and ensure that there is fertile ground for political negotiations, which cannot happen with Hamas, human lives may be saved in the short term, but the body count could be even higher in the long term. This is a perfect example of a catch-22. There is no ideal solution to the current conflict. If there were one that would eliminate Hamas while preserving all human lives, it would already have been implemented. I feel a bit pessimistic with that answer, but at the same time I am perhaps somewhat realistic as well. Unfortunately, realism cannot go by the wayside when we are looking at situations such as this one here tonight.

221 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/16/23 11:30:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tonight, several of our Jewish and Muslim colleagues have shared their concerns about the rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia here at home over the past week. What does the member for Saint-Jean think about that? Can she share her thoughts on what the Government of Canada can do to address this reality?

56 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Oct/16/23 11:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a little bit in my speech, I think that two of the actions that can be taken have already been taken by parliamentarians. The purpose of the question was to determine what parliamentarians can do. On the one hand, we must condemn the situation, which we have done unanimously. We must condemn the hateful demonstrations that occurred in various places and the individual hateful comments that are made by the public. We must transcend the debate and lead by example, which I believe we more or less achieved this evening. For the most part the remarks were nuanced and the violence was condemned, and there is a will to protect all civilian lives, regardless of whether they are Palestinian or Israeli and regardless of their religion. I think that is a step in the right direction.

141 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/16/23 11:31:50 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the member for Saint-Jean and all members who took part in this evening's debate. It being 11:31 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, the committee will rise.

38 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/16/23 11:32:24 p.m.
Watch

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 11:32 p.m.)

27 words