Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to Canada’s military trade with Israel: (a) is Global Affairs Canada (GAC) aware of any evidence of use of Canadian military goods or technology, including components, by Israel in the current war; (b) has GAC conducted an internal review of previously authorized arms export and brokering permits to Israel since October 7, 2023, and, if so, (i) what branch or sector organized, (ii) what was the outcome of, the review, and if not, why not; (c) has GAC reviewed any applications for arms export and brokering permits to Israel since October 7, 2023; (d) has GAC issued any arms export permits to Israel since October 7, 2023; (e) has GAC reviewed its assessment on export permits to Israel in light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the situation in the West Bank; (f) has GAC identified any serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law since October 7, 2023; (g) in GAC’s analysis, do the deaths of over 6,500 children and 4,000 women amount to serious violence against women and children; (h) has GAC reviewed its risk assessment of small arms exports to Israel given reports that the Israeli government has been arming extremist settlers in the West Bank, and given reports of Israeli soldiers participating alongside settlers in violent acts against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank; (i) how does GAC define “serious” when assessing risk of (i) a serious violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, (ii) serious acts of violence against women and children, under section 7 of the EIPA; (j) has GAC sought to mitigate the risk that Canadian arms exports to Israel could be used in serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and, if so, what were those mitigation measures; (k) have Canadian officials ever denied an arms export or brokering permit for the transfer of military goods to Israel, and if so, when and under what circumstances; (l) what assessments has GAC conducted with regard to Canada’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty and violence in Israel and Palestine since October 7, 2023; (m) since 2015, have GAC officials conducted a review to determine the risk associated with Canada’s arms exports to Israel, and if they have been used in serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT), and, if so, what were the findings of this or these reviews; (n) are Israeli companies vetted for connection to serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law in their bids for government contracts; (o) does Canada currently procure military goods or technology that is “battle-tested” in the OPT; (p) has Canada conducted an assessment of Elbit Systems for risk of complicity in breaches of international law in the occupied Palestinian territories; (q) given Israel’s arms trade relationship with Azerbaijan and their involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has GAC, since 2021, reviewed arms trade export and brokering permits given Israel’s arms trade relationship with Azerbaijan and their involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; and (r) if the answer to (q) is affirmative, what branch or section handled the review, and what was the difference in risk evaluations between the export permits for Türkiye and export permits issued for Israel?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to the government’s policy towards the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ): (a) does the government continue to oppose the ICC’s investigation into the situation in Palestine, and, if so, on what basis; (b) how many states does the government accept are parties to the ICC; (c) has the government communicated its opposition to the investigation into the situation in Palestine to the Prosecutor of the ICC, and, if so, when was the most recent time this occurred and has it happened since October 7, 2023; (d) does Canada work in conjunction or in collaboration with other states in its opposition to the ICC, and, if so, who are these states; (e) has the government of Israel communicated approval of the government’s opposition to the ICC’s investigation into the situation in Palestine; (f) has the Palestinian Authority communicated with the government regarding Canada’s opposition to the ICC’s investigation into the situation in Palestine; (g) does the government oppose an ICC investigation into alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, committed by Hamas; (h) what is the government’s position on the decision by the government of Belgium to pledge an additional €6 million to the ICC to financially support its investigation into the situation in Palestine; (i) what motivated Canada to submit its views opposing the ICJ’s advisory proceedings on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem; and (j) prior to submitting its opposition to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, did government officials hold meetings with other states to coordinate efforts to oppose the case at the ICJ?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns  With regard to the government’s policy towards international law and the situation in Israel and Palestine: (a) what is the government’s position on the role that international criminal law plays in addressing alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide committed in the context of the war between Israel and Hamas; (b) with respect to the November 2023 United Nations General Assembly vote which reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, what political and legal motivations led Canada to vote against the resolution; (c) does the government accept that Israeli settlements in Occupied Territories are illegal under international law; (d) does the government believe that, under international law, Gaza is a territory under occupation by Israel; (e) what is the government’s position on and response to the proposal by Israeli government ministers and Knesset members to “voluntarily move” Gazans to other countries and that Israel can no longer put up with the “existence of an independent entity in Gaza”; (f) what is the Canadian government’s position on the principle of proportionality, as it relates to attacks in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces, (i) does the government believe that all of the attacks on Gaza since October 7, 2023, have been proportional, (ii) if not, which attacks have not been proportional or which attacks require further investigation; (g) does the government accept that the lawful right of states to self-defence must be proportional, and what is the government’s position on the proportionality of self-defence under International Humanitarian Law; (h) what is the government’s legal position with respect to both the blockade and siege of Gaza, and does it accept that the blockade is illegal; (i) does the government accept that it is obligated to prevent the commission of genocide under international law, and what obligations does the government accept in this regard; (j) does the government accept that it is under obligation to punish any persons responsible for the commission of genocide under international law; (k) does the government believe that the Responsibility to Protect doctrine is of relevance to the situation in Palestine, and does the government accept that it has a responsibility to protect civilians in Gaza, (i) if so, then how so, (ii) if not, why not; (l) what specific obligations does the government believe follow from Common Article 1 of the Genocide Convention which requires all High Contracting Parties, including Canada, “to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”; (m) should the opportunity arise, would the government be willing to exercise its universal jurisdiction powers, under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, to prosecute, rather than deport, a person involved in the commission of genocide or war crimes in Israel or Palestine; and (n) does the government make any distinction between lawful and legitimate “unilateral actions” that are peaceful, non-violent and within the framework of international politics and diplomacy and “unilateral actions” that are illegal and war crimes (per the Rome Statute) under international law?

International Development  Mr. Speaker, the same day that the ICJ ruled that there is a risk of genocide in Gaza, the Liberals paused funding to UNRWA, which is a lifeline for millions of innocent Palestinians. People will lose their lives, and unbelievably, the Conservative leader has accused 30,000 UNRWA humanitarian workers of being terrorists.

Foreign Affairs  Mr. Speaker, the Liberal position is appalling, not responsible. For two months, this government sat and watched while 18,000 innocent civilians lost their lives, and it has refused to call for a ceasefire. We need a ceasefire. We need the hostages removed. Last week, it was reported that Liberal donors were withholding support because of the moral failure of the Liberals.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, he sort of got it right there when he first said a ceasefire. Here is the deal: I am trying to save the lives of children who have nothing to do with Hamas, women who have nothing to do with Hamas and the hostages who have nothing to do with Hamas. In fact, all this violence against those women and children is not making a single person safer in Israel.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I do believe I spoke quite extensively during my speech about how Bill C-41 has failed women and girls in Afghanistan. I also spoke about the low ODA, or official development assistance, and how that has failed. One thing I would also bring up is that we debated this in June.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, frankly, when I speak to my constituents, what they really want me to do is work with other parties to get supports for them, to do the work together to get things done. They do not actually want to see us fighting with each other in the House of Commons. They want to see us making sure things happen, such as dental care.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, if the Conservative Party does not understand the difference between Russia invading and occupying Ukraine and Palestine being occupied, I do not know what to say. I do not know how to help the member. He may need to do a bit more reading and research if he is going to be the critic for international development.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, yes, it is pretty baffling that Conservatives would have voted against international development and foreign affairs. They voted against the support for gender equity work that was being proposed. All of these things are a clear indication to me that this is simply an attempt to weaponize debate in the House.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, I do appreciate that some things have been done. Under Stephen Harper, there was an initiative called the Muskoka initiative, which did have some good pieces to it, but it took out any support for reproductive health care anywhere else in the world. It happened at a time when that was also being done in the United States, so all of a sudden there was very little aid being given for women's reproductive health around the world.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, to be fair, I really should be more clear. It is only some members of the Conservative Party who have been very clear that they are not supportive.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, frankly, I was on the foreign affairs committee when that witness came, so I can be very clear on that, certainly. I want to talk about international humanitarian law. We were talking about the fact that international humanitarian law means that Bill C-41 was bad legislation that was unnecessary.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this place and represent the good people of Edmonton Strathcona. This is a concurrence debate. We were unaware that this was coming, and so I am going to talk a little bit from the heart and tell members a few of the things that I have been thinking about, now knowing that we are to debate this motion.

Committees of the House  Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague and hear his thoughts. We are in this place right now having this debate. We were not told that this was coming. This has been a bit of a surprise for us. We are trying to think of ways that we could help the people of Afghanistan.