Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I hate to rush you, but I am going to run out of time, so we'll get to that last part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You're 50 seconds over.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I wonder whether he could answer the question, since that was allowed for other members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Absolutely, he can, but answer very briefly, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The question was on whether or not you feel that Israel's response has been a war crime because of collective punishment and attacks on UN workers.

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Very briefly, Chair, the right to self-defence of Israel obviously has to be exercised under the rules of international law, which is international humanitarian law. It has a number of principles that need to be followed: necessity, proportionality and distinction.

Again, as I mentioned to the Bloc Québécois member, it is not something that we, from the perspective of Canada, are able to make a complete assessment of because of information that is lacking from open sources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We have two minutes remaining. Given that you are here, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you a question that arose on a number of occasions in our last several rounds.

Could you tell me, Mr. Aumais, whether—from the perspective of international law—it is possible to place predicates or conditions on a people's right to self-determination?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

For a sovereign state to put predicates on...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is it possible to place predicates or conditions on a people's right to self-determination?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Thank you, Chair, for your question.

The self-determination of peoples, as I mentioned, is a peremptory norm of international law. It's not one that states can avoid. I would suggest that a state seeking to create its own type of observance of that obligation through predicates, for instance, would raise some questions about whether the peremptory norm is respected.

The right to self-determination exists and has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. The right exists, full stop.

Regarding how it is exercised, there are different iterations. However, with regard to putting preconditions—if I understand your meaning of “predicate”—on its exercise, I cannot see that rule excepting those kinds of preconditions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for bringing clarity.

That concludes our questions.

Mr. Aumais and Madame Netley, thank you very much for your time, expertise and perspective on all of the issues that were raised. We're very grateful.

We will suspend for three minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We can resume.

For the second panel, we're grateful to have Mr. Richard Arbeiter, associate assistant deputy minister, international security and political affairs. We're also incredibly grateful to have Mr. Alexandre Lévêque back once again. He is the assistant deputy minister for the Europe, Middle East and Arctic branch.

I take it, Mr. Lévêque, that you already have returning to our committee in your schedule for the remainder of the year. We're very grateful you've taken the time. Would you like to make opening remarks?

Mr. Lévêque, you have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Middle East and Arctic Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for welcoming me back.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss Canada's advancement of a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will use it to briefly describe Canada's long-standing position in support of a two-state solution and how we have responded to developments on the ground in this regard.

However, I will flag from the outset—much like my colleague did in the previous session—that this issue is evolving rapidly and is under active consideration at this very moment. Consequently, I hope the committee will appreciate that while I will do my best to provide analysis and offer views on the various considerations, I am not in a position to comment on any advice the department may be providing to the government.

Canada's position on questions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains guided by a historic commitment to a two-state solution, as it has always been. Support for the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, one living side by side with Israel in peace and security, has been the standing position of consecutive Canadian governments over the decades.

In 1947, Canada played a key role as a member of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or UNSCOP. It was one of seven members of the committee to approve the partition plan for Palestine.

On November 29, 1947, Canada was one of 33 UN member states to vote in favour of Resolution 181, which recommended the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states and a corpus separatum for Jerusalem.

Twenty years later, in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, Canada also voted in favour of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace within the framework of a negotiated peace agreement and full diplomatic recognition between the parties.

In 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, signed the Declaration of Principles, also known as the Oslo Accords, which included the creation of an interim governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, as well as mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO. Canada has fully supported the peace process defined by the Oslo Accords, and has always maintained that a negotiated two-state solution is the only way to achieve the goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

In recent years, prospects for a negotiated two-state solution have diminished. They deteriorated significantly following Hamas's brutal terrorist attack against Israel of October 7, 2023, in light of the human toll of the Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip, and the broader escalation in the region. This grim context has reignited discussions around the world on the prospects for a two-state solution and the path to peace.

It is clear that we urgently need to build a credible path to a two-state solution whose process cannot indefinitely delay the creation of a Palestinian state.

In response to developments on the ground, Canada's Permanent Representative to the United Nations indicated to the UN General Assembly in May of this year that the Government of Canada was prepared to recognize the State of Palestine at the time most conducive to a lasting peace, and not necessarily as the final step in the process.

State recognition does not negate the critical need for direct bilateral negotiations between the parties. The Government of Canada considers that key final status issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, can only be resolved through negotiations among the parties concerned in the context of a final status peace agreement.

Canada has historically played a role in the search for a viable and comprehensive solution on those issues and stands ready to support new negotiations in the future.

The government also believes that durable peace needs to be regional and include the full integration of Israel in the Middle East. The government has welcomed the 2020 Abraham Accords as a positive step towards Israel's integration into the region. Global Affairs Canada will continue to work with the international community to advance these efforts, keeping in mind the need for long-term security guarantees for Israel.

Mr. Chair, the issue that you are studying today is one that merits thoughtful consideration and an understanding of the various implications. I hope our testimony today will contribute to this endeavour.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lévêque.

We now turn to the members.

The first member up is Mr. Chong. You have four minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clearly, the recognition of statehood is an inherently political decision for the political executive to make, and I would add that this decision is not made in isolation from what our closest allies are doing.

I note that when the Government of Canada recognized the statehood of Kosovo in 2008, it did so after Canada's closest allies, and our G7 colleagues, did the same. Currently, none of Canada's closest allies and none of our G7 partners have recognized Palestinian statehood.

I'll make a statement, which I assume you agree with. It is that Canada's closest and most important ally is the United States that and our most important bilateral relationship in the world is with the United States. Almost equally important are close allies like the United Kingdom and France, with whom we are bound by treaties such as the NATO treaty, and the Five Eyes agreements with the United States and the United Kingdom, with whom we also have close military co-operation in training of each other's forces and the like.

What would be the implications or the fallout if Canada were to recognize Palestinian statehood ahead of any one of our partners in the G7, or ahead of our closest military allies in the Euro-Atlantic alliance?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

Mr. Chair, obviously it would be very speculative of me to start commenting on a decision that has not yet been made by the government and the incomplete information as to what like-minded partners and allies would do.

What I can say, however, is that this issue is very much alive, and not just in our capital. It is discussed in a very intense way in the capitals of the very countries you've listed—France, the United Kingdom, Germany, a few European partners, Australia, New Zealand. These are very live conversations.

Obviously, I don't know the kinds of conversations that are taking place in the transition team that is being formed in Washington. We can expect a number of changes to the United States' policy towards the Middle East.

Of course, we're comparing notes. We're talking to each other, and we're weighing the considerations as a group of very like-minded countries.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Is the government of Canada cognizant of the fact that a decision regarding Palestinian statehood is not to be taken in isolation from what our closest allies are doing?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

I think it is a fair statement to say that what others are doing and how they are planning their pronouncements on this is an important consideration.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We next go to Mr. Zuberi.

You have four minutes.

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

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

Thank you to all members for this study.

Our key goal and objective in this study is to ensure that each and every person in the region, regardless of ethnicity, faith or which border they live within or outside of, lives in peace and security, which is exactly a two-state solution.

The uncertainty with respect to Palestine relates to the fact that it's not fully recognized by the international community, despite the fact that there are 149 countries currently recognizing it, to my knowledge.

Has the fact that the full international community has not moved towards recognition created uncertainty and instability in the region?

[Alexandre Lévêque]

I would not want to propose direct causality between the lack of unanimity in the international community and the state of instability in the region.

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

Maybe I'll put this more precisely.

Has the current lack of recognition led to a differential type of policy in the way in which Canada engages with the occupied Palestinian territories vis-à-vis how we would engage if we recognized the State of Palestine? I think, for example, of international tribunals, international bodies like UNESCO, etc.

[Alexandre Lévêque]

I apologize. I'm not sure I really understand the point of the question.

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

Currently, Canada does not recognize the State of Palestine. As a result, to my knowledge, we do not respect the standing of the Palestinian territories in different instances.

Would that change if we recognized the State of Palestine?