Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

The decision by Canada as a state to recognize another state is a matter that can be taken at a moment of the government's choosing.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You need a letter and you need a microphone, right?

I'd like to have a quick conversation about some of the consistency with regard to how we do this.

We know that Canada was among the first to recognize Kosovo. Canada, at the time, cited human rights, stability and the principle of self-determination. From your perspective, is there a legal rationale or any reason for why this government has failed to apply the same principles to Palestine, where systematic human rights abuses, illegal settlements and occupation have continued for some time?

It does look very much like we have chosen to respect the right to self-determination for some but not for others. I wonder if you have a comment on that.

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Chair, maybe to start with the end of the member's question, the issue of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people is a matter that government has had on the record for a period of time. There's no issue about that with respect to the Palestinian people.

The question of the timing of the government's decision, again, is a political question. As the legal adviser of the department, I wouldn't be able to speak to those political considerations, but the criteria normally taken into account by a state to make such a decision are available for the government. I would not want to suggest that the way the government made its decision on previous recognitions of state binds the government on future ones.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Of course, it wouldn't bind government, but one would question why different decisions are made in different places.

I know one of the arguments that has been given is that the government needs to be cautious and that it could be destabilizing in the present context. When we recognized Kosovo, the recognition was seen as a step toward stabilizing the Balkans, yet in Palestine, after decades of displacement and violence, we continue to have one of the world's longest-standing crises.

I'm wondering how that claim of promoting global stability while refusing to recognize Palestine would be appropriate.

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Chair, I would love, as legal adviser, to be able to offer a satisfactory answer to the member, but I'm getting into the realm of policy and politics. I believe the next panel might be able to offer additional guidance on that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

That's good for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

We next go to Mr. Hoback. You have three minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, witnesses, for being here. This is fascinating.

I'm just kind of curious. We talk about political choice as being the end decision made on statehood, but there has to be some backing information to make that political choice, to actually say that we're going to make the political choice to do this.

What types of things would you like to see in the legal aspects that would go into that decision before it's made?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Chair, when a state makes a decision about recognizing a new state, it wants to achieve a decision that is clear and provides certainty, not just for the new state itself but also for our citizens, for our ability to interact as people to people and to have different kinds of relationships.

In customary international law, which is the source of international law that stems from the practice of states, having sufficient governmental authority over a relatively well-defined territory and an absence of challenge from other states are the kinds of elements, as I mentioned in my preliminary statement, that would be looked at, but this is—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

In that scenario, that would be a negotiation between the two parties deciding on statehood, would it not?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

No, it's not a negotiation. It's a sovereign appreciation by the recognizing state.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

To have a clearer picture, if there were negotiations, if there were an agreement to move forward, then the political decision would be relatively simple, would it not?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Do you mean if there were a negotiation in terms of certain political considerations?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes. Two parties come together and say that they agree on the actual geographic location, on the rule of law, on how they're going to respect each other, and on many other things that would come into play in that agreement.

Wouldn't that be a better basis to achieve statehood than trying to just declare it and then trying to find out a way to get to that position somewhere later?

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

Chair, this is a very good question. If you go back to the early nineties, that was the plan with the Oslo accords. There was going to be an agreed track between the two sides, allowing them to have sort of a transitional phase, and then, over time, identifying the more permanent elements of a new state, including territory, government and transfer of jurisdiction. It didn't happen the way it was contemplated, so....

The negotiation in that instance happened between the two main players. In terms of negotiations between Canada and those players, again, that's not a—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That wouldn't be a part of the picture. We would be watching it, I assume. We would not necessarily be a part of it, but we'd be using that as the—

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

It could very well be a consideration of the government, absolutely. As I mentioned, it's not an exhaustive list of considerations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you. I'm afraid you're out of time.

We'll now go to Madame Chatel. You have three minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think I ran out of time.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I ask my questions, I'd like to welcome our guests, Mr. Aumais and Ms. Netley.

My colleague Mr. Alghabra has asked for some information, including a list, for example. I know that our wonderful analysts will need it before November 19. So I wonder if it would be possible for you to provide it before that date.

My first question concerns the legal implications for Canada of recognizing the State of Palestine, particularly with regard to its commitments under the Middle East peace agreements.

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

I thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

As for the legal implications for Canada that would follow eventual recognition, the relations that Canada would have with this new state would be guided by international law as a whole and by the various obligations and courtesies between states that are appropriate.

As for questions related to the Middle East peace process, I think I should leave those to my colleagues on the next panel. To my knowledge, Canada has no firm obligations in the peace process. In terms of foreign policy, of course, Canada, as well as every country in the world, must take into consideration the progress of this peace process.

The previous speaker asked about the principle of self-determination of peoples. Obviously, we have to take into account the fact that this principle is a peremptory rule of international law, which means that no country can deviate from this norm.

I think that's how I would answer the member's question.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

I know that the Palestinian Authority is going through an important reform process.

Could you talk about this reform and its vitality as a key element in state recognition?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Answer very briefly.

[Louis-Martin Aumais]

I apologize, Chair. The volume was low at the beginning of the question, so I couldn't hear it.

Could I hear—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You were essentially over the time by the time....