Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne stated on Tuesday that Ottawa has no intention of covering the $1 billion US cost for a permanent position on U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” overseeing the governance and reconstruction efforts in Gaza. Champagne emphasized that Canada will not contribute financially if it decides to join the Board of Peace, as there are still many details to be clarified.
The decision follows Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance of an invitation to join the board, although he noted that his officials have yet to fully review the operational structure and financing details. Champagne highlighted the need to determine the terms of reference and operational procedures for the board, indicating that Canada’s participation hinges on whether it aligns with the country’s best interests.
The board, to be led indefinitely by Trump, allows member states three-year terms unless they make a $1 billion US contribution for permanent membership and to fund the board’s activities. The White House mentioned that permanent membership is extended to partner countries exhibiting a strong commitment to peace, security, and prosperity.
When asked about Canada’s interest in a permanent seat, Carney emphasized the importance of providing direct assistance to Palestinians in Gaza rather than pursuing a permanent board membership. He reiterated Canada’s focus on maximizing the impact of financial aid to enhance the welfare of Gazans directly.
Regarding the board’s composition, Trump has appointed a diverse group, including politicians, diplomats, and billionaires, to two executive committees overseeing the Gaza process. However, the operational responsibilities will be carried out by a team of 15 Palestinian technocrats unrelated to Hamas and screened by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency.
While some countries have shown initial support, including the UAE and Hungary, concerns have been raised about the board’s charter potentially undermining the authority of the United Nations. The initiative has received mixed responses from global leaders, with ongoing discussions about the implications and operational framework of the Board of Peace.