• 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:
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?
 
Let's hope this will be sorted out now that the enviro-extremistshave been ousted...


1790000380628.png

When Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, meets with Prime Minister Mark Carney in Ottawa next week, the subject of farmed salmon will be high on the agenda.

The reason is that Norwegian companies have significant investments in Canada that are at risk because of federal government policies that Carney inherited from Justin Trudeau.

In 2024, the Liberal government said that it would extend existing operating licences on the West Coast for five years before forcing producers to take all open net salmon farms out of the water by the end of June 2029.

The decision was a death sentence for an industry that employs thousands of people, sustains impoverished First Nations communities up and down the coast, and acts as B.C.’s largest agricultural export earner.

The ban was imposed in response to the demands of environmental activists who said farmed salmon were hurting wild sockeye salmon numbers, even though the evidence from the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat, which provides advice to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was that the risk of pathogen transmission from salmon farms was “minimal.”

Regardless, the government said that producers had to bring their operations on land, a fallacious option, given the water, power and capital requirements to build contained tanks.

For communities including the Ehattesaht First Nation on Vancouver Island’s west coast, the news was devastating. It had just signed a benefit agreement with Grieg Seafood of Norway that saw it take a 30 per cent equity position in a proposed $300 million post-smolt contained facility that would have grown the salmon on land for a year before putting them in the water.

Grieg’s operations in Canada and northern Norway were bought for around $1 billion late last year by another Norwegian company, Cermaq, which is now lobbying for Ottawa to reverse the ban that has frozen its investment plans. If the government fails to reconsider, it faces compensation claims from Cermaq and another Norwegian firm, Mowi, as well as from impacted First Nations.

Canada is now in the ridiculous position of having the same ocean capacity as Norway but production of just 50,000 tonnes of salmon a year, compared to Norway’s 1.7 million tonnes.

What’s worse is that B.C. production has declined 45 per cent because of the ban and we are now importing $765 million of farmed salmon a year from abroad, including from China.

“We are simply sending jobs and economic value to other countries while we diminish our own food independence and security,” said Tim Kennedy, president of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

The upside for a prime minister looking for investment is that reversing the ban and granting extended licences would unleash a flood of new capital into the industry.

Cermaq officials have recently said that around $1 billion of capital investment planned for Canada has gone elsewhere because of political uncertainty.

The good news is that the industry has plans in place to rebuild capacity to around 90,000 tonnes a year within 10 years, at a capital cost of around $1 billion, and then to grow capacity to 180,000 tonnes, with a projected capital requirement of a further $3 billion.

 
Let's hope this will be sorted out now that the enviro-extremistshave been ousted...


View attachment 102343

When Norway’s prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, meets with Prime Minister Mark Carney in Ottawa next week, the subject of farmed salmon will be high on the agenda.

The reason is that Norwegian companies have significant investments in Canada that are at risk because of federal government policies that Carney inherited from Justin Trudeau.

In 2024, the Liberal government said that it would extend existing operating licences on the West Coast for five years before forcing producers to take all open net salmon farms out of the water by the end of June 2029.

The decision was a death sentence for an industry that employs thousands of people, sustains impoverished First Nations communities up and down the coast, and acts as B.C.’s largest agricultural export earner.

The ban was imposed in response to the demands of environmental activists who said farmed salmon were hurting wild sockeye salmon numbers, even though the evidence from the Canadian Scientific Advisory Secretariat, which provides advice to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, was that the risk of pathogen transmission from salmon farms was “minimal.”

Regardless, the government said that producers had to bring their operations on land, a fallacious option, given the water, power and capital requirements to build contained tanks.

For communities including the Ehattesaht First Nation on Vancouver Island’s west coast, the news was devastating. It had just signed a benefit agreement with Grieg Seafood of Norway that saw it take a 30 per cent equity position in a proposed $300 million post-smolt contained facility that would have grown the salmon on land for a year before putting them in the water.

Grieg’s operations in Canada and northern Norway were bought for around $1 billion late last year by another Norwegian company, Cermaq, which is now lobbying for Ottawa to reverse the ban that has frozen its investment plans. If the government fails to reconsider, it faces compensation claims from Cermaq and another Norwegian firm, Mowi, as well as from impacted First Nations.

Canada is now in the ridiculous position of having the same ocean capacity as Norway but production of just 50,000 tonnes of salmon a year, compared to Norway’s 1.7 million tonnes.

What’s worse is that B.C. production has declined 45 per cent because of the ban and we are now importing $765 million of farmed salmon a year from abroad, including from China.

“We are simply sending jobs and economic value to other countries while we diminish our own food independence and security,” said Tim Kennedy, president of the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance.

The upside for a prime minister looking for investment is that reversing the ban and granting extended licences would unleash a flood of new capital into the industry.

Cermaq officials have recently said that around $1 billion of capital investment planned for Canada has gone elsewhere because of political uncertainty.

The good news is that the industry has plans in place to rebuild capacity to around 90,000 tonnes a year within 10 years, at a capital cost of around $1 billion, and then to grow capacity to 180,000 tonnes, with a projected capital requirement of a further $3 billion.

If anything Carney seems to show he looks at evidence and cost vs reward a lot for policies. I could see this being reversed. Given his approval rating, he probably has the political capital to reverse firearms bans too
 
Given his approval rating, he probably has the political capital to reverse firearms bans too

I agree, but I think it depends on how far he'd reverse them. Pre Trudeau and I think whatever remains of the opposition on the right would collapse completely. Vanish perhaps.

I don't think I'll ever vote for his party again. That said, I suspect I'd be in a very small minority.
 
Real stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one.

Brock and McColeman had endorsed Dave Carroll, who holds certain "views" that don't mesh very well in 2026.

So it's understandable why Poilievre stepped in, but it's also going to be seen poorly by some that the nomination wasn't via a competitive race.

 
Last edited:
Real stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one.

Brock and McColeman had endorsed Dave Carroll, who holds certain "views" that don't mesh very well in 2026.

So it's understandable why Poilievre stepped in, but it's also going to be seen poorly by some that the nomination wasn't via a competitive race.


Very sour reaction.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top