Foreign Affairs Committee on June 3rd, 2021

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I'll go back to the topic of elections. In the briefings you've had from our missions, what is your sense of what will happen with the election and with the coalition building that's happening in Israel now? Do you think we're into a period of instability or stability? How might this affect the possibility of the ceasefire holding?

[Troy Lulashnyk]

I try not to be overly optimistic, but I would say that as long as we can reinforce the ceasefire with emergency intervention, it will hopefully hold and we'll continue on this path. I think, at the end of the day, none of them wants to see more of the tragic consequences that we experienced. I think that's positive.

The domestic political situation in Israel has been chaotic and very difficult for a number of years with four elections. I think Prime Minister Netanyahu has been successful up to this point in maintaining his role, but just recently we have what they call an anti-Netanyahu coalition, which has indicated to President Rivlin that they can form a government. We'll see what happens with the voting in a couple of weeks whether there is a different coalition in place.

There are those who would say any kind of actual coalition is a stabilizing factor, and they just want to get on with it. There are those who express concerns about the direction of the coalition.

In Israeli society, we see a very strong support of Israel, settlements and settlers. In building that space between Palestinians and Israelis, there's concern about how successful we're going to be in the near term, but we continue to work very closely with our Israeli friends. We continue to work with our allies and partners and with the Palestinians. There is only the path of prosperity and stability because that's what everyone wants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant. That's your time.

If you have a very brief question, you might be able to slide it in.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The brief question would be with respect to the ICC. Canada was strong in saying that under the statute of Rome, we didn't believe that Palestinians had a recourse there. However, I believe we've also said we respect the independence of the prosecutor and the court itself and will watch that unfold.

Is that fair as well?

[Troy Lulashnyk]

Yes, we're reviewing and watching the investigation carefully and very strongly supporting the ICC. This is the cornerstone of the rules-based international order that we need.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

Colleagues, that will take us to the end of our scheduled time with our witnesses this afternoon.

On behalf of committee members, I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony, expertise, and, especially, for their participation.

Thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. It was very beneficial to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Lulashnyk and Ms. Garner.

Colleagues, with that, I have brief points of business. We will let our witnesses disconnect at their discretion.

We have coming to us tonight or tomorrow the draft report on arms exports. We will begin consideration of that report on Tuesday. Would members agree to revert to our previous practice of having suggested amendments distributed in writing beforehand?

I think it worked quite well last time. If that's agreeable, I would suggest Monday to the clerk, if it's in one language only, or Tuesday by noon, if you have bilingual amendments. It's not a hard requirement in the sense that colleagues should be free to introduce amendments or suggestions from the floor. It just made our work easier in the COVID report, and with respect to the sessions we have on arms exports, it may be efficient to do it that way.

Is there agreement, if you have amendments, to circulate them Monday in one language and Tuesday by noon, if you have them in both? Is there any opposition to that?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That doesn't take away from the opportunity to bring them—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

No, not at all. It's simply an efficiency mechanism. If you have substantial amendments, it might make it a little easier for colleagues to be able to respond to them and make our work a bit more efficient in the coming sessions.

Colleagues, thank you very much. I know we're not at the full two hours today because of the hard work we did in the previous session. That bought us some extra time, but we can turn our thoughts to arms exports during that hour. I thank you for your co-operation and excellent testimony this afternoon on a very complex issue.

Mr. Bergeron, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like a clarification.

I understand that we are about to end our meeting. Would it not have been possible to continue our exchange with officials on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

As for the notice of meeting and their availability, we had them for an hour and we chose to respect that.

We did have a witness who was tentatively slated for the second hour, and that witness was unavailable. As a result, that hour opened up, but we had already confirmed with officials that they would make themselves available only for the one-hour briefing.

Just to be respectful of the timeline and the notice of meeting as circulated, with your agreement, we will leave it there. The committee, of course, is free to revisit the issue as it chooses going forward. I think all members will have an interest in remaining seized of the substance.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I just want to express my disappointment. No one, obviously, is responsible for the situation, but we had the opportunity to see among ourselves how we had so few meetings left before the summer break. So it is unfortunate that we are losing an hour out of the few hours we have left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I agree, Mr. Bergeron.

It's not an ideal outcome, but I'm sure members can put that extra hour to good use with respect to thinking ahead to our work on arms exports, on which I'm sure there will be some discussion.

It's not perfect, but I think, in light of the circumstances, it's the best outcome we could achieve collectively on this with the will of the committee as was expressed in the subcommittee report.

With that, I thank you. Stay healthy.

Thank you very much for your co‑operation.

We will see you on Tuesday.

This meeting is adjourned.