The NDP’s motion on Palestine ended up being a vain exercise in nothingness

Open this photo in gallery:

So what was the point of all that? No, really: What was actually accomplished – symbolic or otherwise – by passing a motion that mostly affirmed the status quo in regard to Canada’s position on the war in Gaza?

After Parliament spent nearly the entire day Monday debating a opposition-day motion from the NDP that called for, among other things, Canada to “officially recognize the State of Palestine,” the Liberals and NDP emerged just before the vote to unveil a different motion – sorry, an “amended” motion – that did no such thing. Instead, it called on Canada to “actively pursue the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, including toward the establishment of the State of Palestine as part of a negotiated two-state solution.” In other words, for it to continue to do what it is already doing. The motion passed by a vote of 204 to 117.

Why NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh allowed his motion to be neutered in this way, especially after his party spent the last month talking about the grave importance of recognizing the state of Palestine, would be unclear had Mr. Singh not long ago established the dopey rudderlessness of his leadership.

Though, to give Mr. Singh some benefit of the doubt, perhaps he heard and heeded criticism about the motion accidentally rewarding Hamas for staging a terrorist attack. The NDP did not bring forth a motion to recognize a Palestinian state on Oct. 6, after all. But it nevertheless reflects poorly on the moral conviction of those leading the party that its members can claim, in the morning, that “now is the time to recognize Palestine,” and then by evening stumble out of meetings with Liberals and declare that, whoops, our bad, now might actually not be the time after all.

If the Liberals had any confidence in their convictions, they would have simply voted against the motion as it was originally presented. Like the rest of the G7, Canada does not recognize a Palestinian state, and though some members have signalled the possibility at some point in the future, they have emphasized that certain conditions would have to be met first. British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, for example, has made clear that recognition of Palestinian statehood cannot come as long as Hamas is in charge.

But the Liberals couldn’t simply vote against it as any principled government would do – not when all foreign policy is, first and foremost, domestic to this administration. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been hurting in the polls for months, and taking a position on Palestinian statehood (even if that position would have been the same one Canada’s governments have held for 50 years) would have been too risky for a party that might as well hold its cabinet meetings sitting atop a fence on Parliament Hill. So they had to hammer out a new, “safe” amendment, with extra references to Hamas for Canadian Jews, but one that also didn’t actually outline any changes to Canada’s foreign-policy outlook.

The original motion called for Canada to “lift the arbitrary cap of 1,000 temporary visa applications” from people in Gaza. The revised motion said Canada should simply “expand access” in some undefined way. The original motion called on Canada to “ban extremist settlers from Canada” and “sanction Israeli officials who incite genocide.” The revised version said Canada must “sanction extremist settlers,” which is something it has already committed to doing. In fact, the amended motion as a whole is pretty much an affirmation of the status quo: Canada has already reinstated funding to UNRWA; it already paused military exports to Israel, according to a report in the Toronto Star; it already demanded a ceasefire in Gaza; and, yes, it already supports efforts toward a peaceful two-state solution, leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

But even if this were all new, the motion is non-binding, meaning there is no mechanism to ensure the government follows through. Indeed, it is a glorified wish list by kids playing model Parliament, but in this case, one that reflects things already purchased or in the shopping cart. That’s why celebrations by NDP MPs after the vote were almost comical: Charlie Angus saying that “history was made tonight,” Alexandre Boulerice calling it “a big win,” Mr. Singh proclaiming that the NDP had “forced” the government to do all sorts of things a non-binding motion couldn’t force anyway.

Usually when it comes to these impotent foreign policy motions, parliamentarians at least make an effort to uphold the façade that they actually serve some practical purpose. But the very process of negotiating an amendment to a non-binding motion is an admission that this was just a waste of time.