Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes. Obviously, with the recognition of statehood would come a number of triggers—for lack of a better term—as to what the status of the new country Canada would recognize would signify.

How exactly would that take form? So many of the international instruments that link us to states are negotiated bilaterally and are part of international agreements. It's not to say that one day you don't recognize a state and the next day you do, and then they're part of all the possible agreements that you would have as part of the international community. It would trigger—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

The way in which we would reply to requests for a state to join an international body would obviously change.

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Yes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Can you outline some strategic advantages that would be gained by recognizing the State of Palestine, in particular for our doing so as a G7 country?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Any decision that would eventually be made.... I would remind this committee that the underlying goal of the Government of Canada is to promote all gestures, negotiations and posturing that will lead to a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

This is what the international community, writ large, aims to do, for the most part. If the government were to choose to trigger this element, which has always been part of the sandbox within which negotiations between parties were included, it would be as an incentive, as a boost to encourage dialogue and a return to a framework that has been in steady decline since the Oslo accords of 1993.

What we've seen instead is a cycle of violence, an expansion of settlements in the West Bank and a denial of one another's existence in a higher and higher proportion, both on the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.

The consideration here is this: What do we need to do as an international community—and as a country—to trigger a reset, to create incentives for parties to come to the table and start negotiating in good faith and to return to a peaceful dialogue, rather than to the vortex of violence that we have been observing?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Can you provide us with a list of countries, particularly our allies, that are currently considering state recognition?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Ones that are currently considering....

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I mean in any shape or form.

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Right.

Look, I obviously can't betray whatever confidential diplomatic conversations are taking place. I will say that a number of our like-minded countries are struggling with the same concepts and are reflecting on when the right time to recognize a Palestinian state would be.

However, I would say that a number of NATO countries have already done so. There's now a total of 145 countries that have recognized it. Recently you saw that Norway, Spain and Ireland have been the latest ones to join that group.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Next we go to Mr. Bergeron. You have four minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Last May, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution by 143 votes in favour, 9 against and 25 abstentions, including Canada, in which the assembly expressed its conviction that the State of Palestine met all the conditions required for membership of the United Nations. The previous panel mentioned these conditions. In a World Affairs press release, Canada cited a number of reasons for its abstention. Curiously, it referred to illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank, which is increasing at an alarming rate and often with impunity; it also referred to the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear, both in his words and actions, that he rejects the two-state solution.

On the substance, does Palestine meet the conditions to be recognized as a state?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

This is an extraordinarily complex question, and I don't know if it was asked of my legal colleagues on the previous panel. Canada's political decision on whether or not to recognize the State of Palestine is not strictly linked to a list of specific triggers. In other words, it could very well be that several indicators or conditions have not yet been met, but that a political gesture causes a move in that direction.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Curiously, the reasons mentioned by Global Affairs Canada seemed to rather justify a vote in favour, yet Canada abstained. Recently, the Government of Canada has indicated its willingness to recognize a Palestinian state at the most propitious time for a lasting peace, even if this is not the final step towards the realization of the two-state solution.

Given the arguments put forward by Global Affairs Canada to justify its abstention on last May's resolution, when would be the right time to recognize the State of Palestine?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

I'll turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Arbeiter, in a second.

First, I'd say there's an important distinction to be made between UN membership and Canada's national bilateral recognition. The triggers are different, and so are the legal implications.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I understand that very well, but the resolution was about Palestine fulfilling all the required conditions. You invoked a whole series of arguments that seemed to plead against Israel to justify not recognizing that Palestine fulfilled all the conditions. You told us that the government told you it was ready to recognize the State of Palestine at the most propitious moment. When will that be? Now that we've drawn up a list of the things we find reprehensible in the attitude of the State of Israel towards Palestine, isn't it time to recognize the State of Palestine?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

The most propitious moment is the moment that will lead to the greatest chances that this decision, this recognition, will contribute to a peace effort. As for the exact moment, I unfortunately don't have an answer to that question.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Let's just say that Canada's lack of action means that the war continues.

I'll let your colleague continue.

[Richard Arbeiter, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security and Political Affairs Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you.

The draft resolution at the United Nations in May was the fifth to deal with UN issues relating to the function of the Palestinian delegation at the UN since 1974. Each time, the draft resolutions were aimed at adding powers to the delegation. It wasn't necessarily a question of recognizing a state. This time, it was about adding additional powers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

MP McPherson, you have four minutes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for being here today and for sharing your expertise with us.

I wanted to start by reminding the committee that there are 145 countries that have recognized Palestine, including many of our allies. I would certainly not want to say that Spain, Norway and Ireland are not allies.

I also want to remind this committee that when the Rome Statute was put into place, the U.S. never signed on. While it is still our key trading partner and, of course, our key ally, Canada has a history of taking decisions and taking steps that are not in line with the United States. We do not share a foreign policy. We have our own sovereignty and can make our own decisions. I wanted to make that very clear.

One of the things I'd like to talk about is the right of return for Palestinians.

Months ago, I raised this issue with the minister. He was unable to answer my question at the time. Recent developments have demanded an urgent response. The IDF has now openly stated—we've seen this in reports that have come out in just the last few days—that Palestinians from northern Gaza will not be allowed to return home, which is a clear act of forcible transfer and ethnic cleansing. This systematic displacement not only steals land but undermines any future prospect of a viable Palestinian state.

What is Canada doing to condemn this blatant violation of international law? Is Global Affairs Canada prepared to speak out against this policy, or will we remain complicit through silence as this land theft and ethnic cleansing continue to shape the reality on the ground?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Thank you, as always, for the question.

This is a recurring theme at this committee. As the honourable member will have heard me say several times before, the legal determination of whether these accusations and reproaches meet the legal definition is not something that can be done lightly. It is not something that can be done expeditiously or through simple political statements. It requires a body of evidence, which takes time to collect.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To be clear, we have direct quotes from Israeli officials. For example, Brigadier-General Cohen recently indicated that Palestinians displaced from northern Gaza will not be allowed to return, effectively denying their right to return under international law, including article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention.

We don't need to study it, because they said it. It's very clear.

[Alexandre Lévêque]

It is. There are two things I would say to that.

The first is that if one element of a government claims something, it does not necessarily mean that the entire government puts its weight behind it.

The second thing I would say is that the return of Palestinian refugees is one of those final status issues that the international community has always recognized must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Wait just one second. Are you saying that there must be a negotiation for Palestinians to return to northern Gaza?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

I'm sorry; I thought you were talking about the general....