• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

Does becoming an associate member of something like the EU count as a treaty?

Some definitions and explanations of what are legally binding and non-binding arrangements



5. Definitions​

5.1 Definition of “Treaty”​

Canada adheres to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, which can be described as a codification of public international law on treaties. The Convention defines treaty in Article 2 as follows:
  • "Treaty means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument, or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation."
Canada is a party to many such instruments. These can be called Treaty, Convention, Agreement, Protocol or some similar word. An exchange of diplomatic notes or letters can also be a treaty.

Treaties can be bilateral, multilateral or plurilateral.
  • Bilateral treaties are those between Canada and one other country.

  • Multilateral treaties are those between three or more countries, generally developed under the auspices of international organizations.

  • Plurilateral treaties are generally entered into between one State and a group of States.

  • Agreements between Canada and International Organizations are often treaties governed by public international law.
For the purpose of this document, "treaty" is used in the general sense of any type of instrument governed by public international law.

8. Non-binding International Instruments​

Under international law, a treaty creates international legal obligations for Canada.

Other international instruments (often referred to, in Canada as "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) or "arrangements") can be considered as creating only moral or political commitments.

In order to avoid situations where instruments that,

could reasonably be viewed to be treaties, and therefore covered by the Government's policy, are not mistakenly classified as non-binding instruments and thus not brought to the attention of the House of Commons,

each Department is responsible for ensuring that the proper distinction is made between treaties and non-binding instruments, in consultation with the Treaty Section of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

For an explanation of the steps leading to the conclusion of a non-legally binding instrument, see Annex C.

Edited to add

Canada is even party to a "treaty" about what a "treaty" is all about.
 
Last edited:
The Spaceport in Canso, NS already has an agreement with the German Isar Aerospace, with launches starting in 2028.

Coincidentally Saint-Pierre-et Miquelon is also right next to the Atlantic Spaceport Complex in St. Lawrence, NL.

“The President and I will task our space agencies and defence ministries to develop and share common infrastructure, including space launch systems and ground-based facilities.”

In a joint statement the leaders also said that the Regional Joint Cooperation Commission between Atlantic Canada and Saint-Pierre-et Miquelon will expand its work in the priority areas of economic growth, energy transition and climate resilience.

A strategic partnership would also be struck between the chambers of commerce of both Canada and France to bring the business communities closer together.

 
Last edited:
For any meaningful status with tangible impact I’d have to think there would be.
I'm a broken record here but something of this political magnitude (anything relat3d to membership) should be held to a vote by citizens and not MPs that get told how to vote by the party leader.
 
I'm a broken record here but something of this political magnitude (anything relat3d to membership) should be held to a vote by citizens and not MPs that get told how to vote by the party leader.
Ok, I’m just saying how it is, not how it ought to be.

I’d meet you in the middle and say that any intention to make any major changes through any sort of major association with the EU might be something that should be put to Canadians along with other proposed mandate items via an election.
 
I suppose Norway snd Iceland have also then made critical errors not fulky becoming members of the EU, what could possibly convince whole countries to not want to join this premier union of states?
That is an apples to pork roast comparison, and you know it. Neither of those two countries were ever part of the European Union. Not joining is a dramatically different choice than unjoining.
 
Ok, I’m just saying how it is, not how it ought to be.

I’d meet you in the middle and say that any intention to make any major changes through any sort of major association with the EU might be something that should be put to Canadians along with other proposed mandate items via an election.
what constitutes major? The EEA? Does this hold if Carney and the Liberals still poll well?
 
Back
Top