Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Family Services and Consumer Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it's important, through this debate, to both stand up against any manifestation of anti-Semitism and, in this particular situation, characterizing Israel as an apartheid regime. Calling Israel an apartheid regime, while likely protected under the Charter, does nothing to move toward greater understanding, peace and social justice. Applying the term "apartheid" to Israel is profoundly inflammatory and most unhelpful.

Now, as a government with a mandate for positive leadership, unlike opposition, it's our duty to search for what unites us, Mr. Speaker, as Manitobans so that we can move ahead and actively pursue causes that can lead to a secure Israel, in a peaceful region, with respect for Jews, most important, of course, among all nationalities including Muslims or Palestinians. This is, in fact, though, the record of our government.

Now the event that led to this resolution has come and gone, and few took notes. It deserves no extraordinary attention now. To that end, well, I will always support those with Middle East peace as their vision and a secure state of Israel through reconciliation amongst their borders. I refuse to now elevate the status of a marginal and most disrespectful hindrance to that vision.

As more than a footnote, Mr. Speaker, and aside from the particular issue at hand, I do question the resolution's intention to–not just a statement from the Assembly, but require the Government of Manitoba to formally denounce–that's the wording–the speech of certain Manitobans on campus or anywhere, through unspecified means–[interjection] I ask the member to allow me to speak–[interjection]

The resolution asks the government to take a formal role in 'denunciating' the speech of certain Manitobans, whether on campus or other places. That's what this resolution does, and that resolution is speaking outside, then, of the existing civil and criminal laws and the Human Rights Code of Manitoba. The wording of the resolution signals, in my view, Mr. Speaker, that Conservatives would do this as they see fit if they governed. You know the application of our civil and criminal laws are backed up by well-established processes, checks and balances to pursue safety, justice, remedies, to change behaviour.

But to create a new function for provincial governments of the day in Canada to formally denounce and chill unwelcome speech–and this is unwelcome speech, I can tell you–from time to time should be very thoroughly and carefully debated in this Chamber. I am then at risk of being their next target. Manitoban supporters of Israel are then at risk of becoming a target and we should not be a party to that. 

* (11:30)

Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the resolution introduced by the member for Tuxedo (Mrs. Stefanson). And I thank her for the resolution, one that is drafted carefully and with much consideration as to the implications of the passage of such a resolution in this Chamber.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I don't doubt the sincerity of members opposite. And I appreciate the fact that they have indicated similarly that they do not doubt the sincerity of members on this side of the House in terms of the issue before the House today.

But I will say, in response to both members opposite, with the greatest of respect, that we believe that they're mistaken in terms of the approach to this issue for a variety of reasons. Mr. Speaker, the state of Israel was created out of the recognition of the Jewish people's historic ties to that sacred place, as well as the recognition of the need to guarantee the security of people who, as recently as 65 years ago, were the victims of systematic tragic and horrific genocide.

Mr. Speaker, that state, through its history–the state of Israel has made an incredible contribution to our world, including to the province of Manitoba, in areas of health care, economic development, science, arts and so many other areas that have enriched the–both the Israeli state but the world as well, including our province of Manitoba.

And I know that as recently as this year, members of the government participated in exchanges to discuss the issue of water management, such a vital resource for all people, such great expertise both here in Manitoba and in the state of Israel. And I commend them for that co-operative relationship.

Mr. Speaker, I have yet to personally visit Israel, although I look forward to doing so this coming October as part of a mission, but what I do know is that this is a state that has made great contributions to our world. And one of those great contributions is its contribution to and commitment to democracy. It is a place where people are free to speak. They're free to disagree as they do on virtually a daily basis. That citizens who are not delineated based on any cultural or religious lines–if you're a state–a citizen of the state of Israel you have the right to participate in elections, to choose the leadership of the country in an open and democratic way.

So it is important–and I think there's no disagreement in this House, to be very clear, about the fact that Israel is a democratic state. There will be many who will have differences and disagreements on Israeli policy when it comes to security. The Israeli people themselves are engaged in vigorous debate, on a daily basis, on the individual policies of individual governments, at various points in time, related to security policy, and related to other issues that are pressing on the people of Israel with respect to their own security, and their own progress as a people and a nation. And that, Mr. Speaker, is indicative of a healthy vibrant democratic government and society, where people are free to disagree on approaches to security and approaches to–on approaches to settlement, and a variety of other areas that are contentious issues but are freely and openly debated.

And so we agree, in this House, Mr. Speaker, that the use of the word "apartheid" is an inflammatory, false, dishonest term designed to stir up certain emotions, designed to stir up a certain sentiment and an attitude toward Israel. And, in the end, what it's grounded in is, among its proponents, a belief that the state of Israel has no right to exist as a state. This is the agenda of the people who are using the word "apartheid," and we need to use the word because they are the ones who are using it, and we need to push back against it. And we need to expose the fallacy and the falsehood of that sort of language as it's applied to the state of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe differently or we disagree with members opposite, in a respectful way. We all agree that apartheid is a hateful, false, inflammatory term, and I'm pleased that we've all agreed on that point. Where we disagree is whether we, as elected members in this Chamber, should speak out within this Chamber on an issue of this nature.

And, Mr. Speaker, we believe that we should speak out for all of the reasons that history has laid before  us on such issues. We know that there is a principle of law that members opposite will know well, usually applied in the realm of contract law, called, silence is acquiescence, Mr. Speaker. But that principle can be applied, not just in the world of contracts, but also in the world of politics and public discourse.

And that, if we choose to remain silent as others in our society go out spreading hatred and attempting to stir up a false perception of the state of Israel with the ultimate objective of seeing the demise of that state, Mr. Speaker, then we are failing as members of this Chamber. As democratically elected members of this Chamber, we're failing democracy, we're failing the people of Israel, and we're ultimately failing to learn the lessons of history.

Now, I heard the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) making reference to the failure of this movement. Mr. Speaker, it is far too premature to declare the defeat of this movement. We have seen the hateful actions at York University; we have seen this propaganda based on falsehood being trotted out at university campuses across the country. We've spoken to students of–Jewish students and others, who have expressed their sense of intimidation and their sense of being marginalized and the targets of hateful, false comments. And we have a duty in this House to speak out against it.

The resolution doesn't propose that we ban such speech, Mr. Speaker, and that is a misinterpretation of what this resolution does. All that it does is calls on members of this Assembly to urge the government to denounce, and denunciation, is not the same as legislation or as banning.

Denunciation, Mr. Speaker, is simply a group of elected officials coming together to speak freely, as we have the right to do in this House, and as we do each and every day. And we've had many debates to–in this Chamber, in the four years that I have been here, we have debated many important and contentious issues, including many that have related to failed regimes and failures of history.

We have, in this Chamber, denounced the policies of the Stalinist Soviet Union which is a failed regime, Mr. Speaker, and yet we continue to speak up and denounce it because we don't want to repeat the mistakes of history. The greatest mistakes that have been made were when good people, people of good will, remain silent in the face of such hatred action. And when hate is unchallenged, we know from history that it gains momentum, that it grows, that it can have an impact on the thoughts, actions, attitudes and policies of people, governments, and organizations everywhere.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to speak out and denounce, not to ban. And we know, members opposite have made comments about the role of government in a democratic society. I would remind them that we have a legislation in place related to defamation that restricts people's ability to say whatever comes into their mind. We have legislation that restricts hate speech. We have restriction on communications that is designed to harm others when that speech is based on falsehood. And that is exactly what Israeli Apartheid is about. It's about falsehood, it's about hate and it is part of an agenda, a broader agenda, to discredit and ultimately destroy the Jewish state.

So we stand today in support of this resolution. We believe that it's important that people speak up. I acknowledge the common ground that we all have in this House and I appreciate the comments of members opposite that we agree that this is a mischaracterization and a falsehood. And I appreciate the fact that they put those comments on the record. I encourage them to take the next step, Mr. Speaker, to put their money where their mouth is. Stand up today and support this very thoughtful, important and relevant resolution.

* (11:40)

Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I want to bring another perspective to this resolution, not the least of which as someone that's been honoured to be a member of this Legislature for some years and seen many debates and watched strong words said back and forth.

I want to speak as someone that believes fundamentally that one of the great aspects of this Legislature in this province is, really, our ability to speak freely. I want to speak also as someone that has attended the University of Manitoba and Lakehead University and seen very much the great tradition of freedom of speech at our universities. And Mr. Speaker, I believe fundamentally that is what is the essence of a democratic society, and whatever we may say or not say about a view that is expressed, even strongly held views, that is the essence of freedom of speech. It's a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I find it ironic, perhaps, in this context, too, that I don't think there's any institution I've ever seen that probably has greater freedom of speech than the Israeli Knesset, and it's the Israeli politics, as unique as it is.

So I start from the premise that freedom of speech may mean at times listening to views that are different–and I expressed concern privately, and I'll put this on the record, at the right-wing commentator that was prevented from speaking at the University of Ottawa. To my mind, that violated the very principle of freedom of speech in our universities. So I do believe–and I'm very concerned by the way even some of the tone in debate, that the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) said the students should be very careful how they choose their words.

We all know that there are proscriptions against hate speech and there are very specific protections and there should be, particularly when it comes anti-Semitism, and I think we should always be aware of that. But I would say to the students who are debating this very contentious issue: We should never, in any way, shape, or form, do anything other than encourage freedom of speech. And there may be times when we object to phrases. I remember when I was at university, there were phrases that were used and expressions. There's a very different situation between objecting to something and, in this case, saying that people should be careful how they choose their words. In what sense? Careful that it should not be hate speech? Absolutely. Careful in terms of not agreeing with a certain perspective or view? That is the essence of freedom of speech.

But I also want to reflect on something else, Mr. Speaker, and I have actually been in Israel and I've been in Palestine, and I–post-Oslo Accords, at the invitation of the former speaker of the Manitoba Legislature, Myrna Phillips–went to Palestine. By the way, if anybody's thinking that I was contributing towards Middle Eastern peace, it was to give a proposal–or presentation on constituency relations.

What struck me when I was there, by the way, is how few Canadians outside of–Canadians have direct contact with the Middle East, have a real organic sense of what is at stake. Three great world religions, all with various strong historic and religious ties to that area, a geographic area that just–it boggles the mind by Canadian perspectives. We're talking, in a matter of hours, we're talking a series of states, all of whose very security and existence is at stake. And I came out of that with an appreciation of the aspirations of Palestinians, of their very real fears of Israelis in terms their own security, and I came out of it with an 'unbiding' desire to do what I could to contribute towards peace.

And some people will know in this Legislature that in my office I have a picture of Mahatma Gandhi. I'm very influenced by Gandhian perspectives in terms of peace and conflict, and I realized at the time, by the way, that part of what you need if you're going to put forward that discourse is to recognize that there are often many sides. There are often many legitimate interests and sometimes what appear to be competing interests.

But I am convinced, after having seen what I saw in the Middle East when I was there, that we all need to be working towards a two-state solution that protects the security of the state of Israel and develops a new era in terms of rights for the Palestinians. That was the essence of the Oslo Accords. That has been the essence of most and maybe of all discourse since that point of time.

And I also came back with one other key thing that I want to leave with people. You know, any time I see conflict in the Middle East, I think of the people who are there. And I also came back with one other key thing that I want to leave with people. You know, anytime I see conflict in the Middle East, I think of the people who are there. I remember it hit home when my son was going to be attending–was going to Lebanon to visit friends, and he was scheduled to leave within a few days of the most–more recent conflict a couple of years ago.

But, you know, anytime there's conflict there, I think of the families here and the people that have direct connections–whether it be to Israel, Palestine, Lebanon or Egypt. And I'm struck by the way of how we all live together in this great province of Manitoba and this great country of Canada and I'm struck by the fact that if we can do one thing when it comes to the Middle East, in my mind, it is not to stir up the passions that already exist but to imply that uniquely Canadian perspective, where we bring together people from all over the world that work, building with Aboriginal people, dealing with a diverse society. And that is why I want to say I would urge all of us to do whatever we can to promote peace in the Middle East. I saw it directly. Many families have much more direct contact than I will ever have.

And, yes, I do believe in freedom of speech. But, you know, fundamentally, I also believe that even in the tone in this debate, I would urge all members of the Legislature to remember that if we can do one thing, it should be to promote peace in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.