“Canadians played an enormous role in the D-Day landings, which we should never forget and always be proud of,” said May. “So many gave their lives to fight against Nazi dictatorship and aggression. We owe it to them to protect the values and traditions they fought for, including our democracy, and build a more peaceful world.”

Fourteen thousand young Canadians stormed Juno Beach on D-Day. The battle cost 340 Canadian lives with another 574 wounded. John Keegan, the eminent British historian and author of Six Armies in Normandy, had this to say about the Canadian 3rd Division on D-Day: “At the end of the day, its forward elements stood deeper into France than those of any other division. The opposition the Canadians faced was stronger than that of any other beach save Omaha. That was an accomplishment in which the whole nation could take considerable pride.”

More than a million Canadian men and women were in uniform during the war. Most of them went to war voluntarily even though Canada was in little imminent danger from Nazi Germany, Italy, or Japan. The D-Day landings were the clearest sign of Canadians’ commitment to and engagement with the rest of the world.

“Martin Luther King said that a man who is not willing to die for something is not fit to live,” said John Percy, Green Party Veterans Affairs Critic. “Our freedom was not free. It was paid for in the blood of a generation that we could scarcely afford to lose, that of our nation’s
children.”

The post Greens Mark D-Day Sacrifices for Democracy appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It should be clear that, since the Second World War, we have seen millions of lives lost in the Cold War through the proxy conflicts of the large super powers. Since 9/11, and the despicable attack on innocents at the World Trade Centre, we have, in the absence of the Cold War, faced security threats that are largely diffuse. Acts of terrorists are often met with a “war on terrorism,” but that is not a helpful term.

As former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker, has pointed out, you cannot declare war on a noun. Security threats posed by terrorists are serious, but the approach of preparedness is more closely akin to a policing action than a full military response.

The largest likelihood is that Canada will no longer face another nation to nation conventional war. The security threats of the 21st century will be different from those of the last century.

In this new reality, Canada’s traditional strategy of a 3-D approach defence, diplomacy and development has the key elements. What we have lacked is a national conversation about the relative importance of each. Sadly, under Stephen Harper, the role of our diplomatic corps has been de-emphasized with embassies closing, diplomats treated as irrelevant, and Canada’s respect for multilateralism itself called into question. Our role as peacemakers, a role invented by former prime minister, Lester Pearson, has also fallen. While we continue to make financial donations to peacekeeping missions, we are no longer making significant contributions in terms of personnel.

Meanwhile, other military establishments around the world, from the U.S. Pentagon to the U.K. military, have identified the climate crisis as a serious security threat. Anthropogenic global warming is a clear and present danger. Global political instabilities will be exacerbated by crop losses, rising sea levels and millions of environmental refugees.

The capacity of our military to effectively respond may be more meaningfully employed through our emergency disaster response than through stealth fighter jets. Responsible preventative steps against this man-made security threat comes through reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an aggressive time-bound fashion.

Canada’s Green Party calls for the following urgent priorities for a realistic 21st century defence strategy:

• Realign our defence spending to increase our capacity and speed in delivering disaster assistance (e.g. through the DART Disaster Assistance Rapid Response Team) and our contributions to UN peacekeeping forces and missions, and decrease our contributions to NATO war efforts.
• Rebuild the broken linkages among Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT), National Defence and the Canadian Forces (DND/CF), and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), to effectively and efficiently plan, organize, and execute our missions abroad.
• Play a lead role in establishing a standing UN Rapid Response Force with a mandate for peacekeeping and environmental restoration in both international crisis situations and domestic catastrophes like floods, earthquakes, storms and fires.
• Instruct Canadian embassies and consulates around the world to develop effective early disaster reconnaissance and assessment capabilities in order to speed up Canadian response times.
• Oppose the use of the United Nations Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine as a military solution to force aid relief on countries that are rejecting it.
• Focus Canada’s development aid efforts and economic investment in the specific key areas that:
• Foster alternative fuels and energy sources that dramatically reduce the need to import oil and natural gas and further allow the growth of recipient nation independent and/or majority ownership of these sectors and/or businesses as they develop.
• Focus on agriculture sectors that provide for food sovereignty through both subsistence farming and domestic commercial farming methods that are in keeping with green environmentally sound and gender equality principles.
• Increase bilateral trade, where possible, to facilitate the export of value added products from small island economies.
• Support and strengthen cooperation with regional organizations to further the goal of regional independence and sovereignty.
• Advance the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ensure its principles are at the core of Canadian foreign policy.
• Support the creation of a Department of Peace and Security.
• Review Canada’s membership in military alliances including NATO and NORAD to ensure they are meeting Canada’s priorities of diplomacy, development and defence.
• Press urgently for global nuclear disarmament and the conversion of military industries in Canada and worldwide into peaceful and restorative industries.
• Meet the urgent needs for aerial and nautical search and rescue with fixed wing planes and Coast Guard vessels and icebreakers.
• Ensure that Canadian veterans are treated with respect and that those requiring ongoing treatment and/or disability payments are ensured compensation at least as generous as that provided for civilian work place injuries.

These and other steps will assist in achieving true global peace and security.

Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post What is the meaning of ‘defence’ in the 21st Century? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Monday March 18, 2013 the committee met in camera to discuss committee business. The minutes for the meeting can be found here. In this meeting, it was agreed that the committee travel to Washington D.C. and Colorado Springs, Colorado, from Tuesday, May 7 to Friday, May 10, 2013, in relation to the study of the Defence of North America, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

On Wednesday March 20, 2013, the committee resumed its study of the care of ill and injured Canadian Forces members. National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Pierre Daigle, made a statement and answered questions. Debate focussed around the creation of a national database for CF members afflicted by operational stress injuries. Daigle was replaced as the witness for the second half of the meeting by representatives of the True Patriot Love Foundation who also made statements, explained what their organization does, and answered questions. The minutes of the meeting can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As we know, Bill C-15 is, for the most part, supported by people throughout the House. It is an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make other consequential amendments. The piece I want to focus on is quite critical and deserves consideration at report stage. It is about changes to the military policing process.

[tb8CQ5KE1sY]

If we go back to why it matters, we go back to an incident Canadians would sooner forget: the shameful incidents that occurred in Somalia involving Canadian armed forces and the subsequent efforts to interfere with that investigation. That led to an entirely new accountability framework, which I am holding here. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal co-signed an accountability framework in March 1998 to set out the principles for proper operational flow.

The primacy of operations as well as the need for independence in investigations are recognized. Striving towards these complementary objectives through a transparent, timely and responsive process are described in this framework agreement as being critical.

These are very important principles that are embodied in the document. What Bill C-15 does is throw them out the window. I have brought forward these amendments to get the relationship back to where it should be, under the accountability framework, to ensure that senior military officials cannot interfere in an investigation.

It is unseemly to imagine that we would have a military investigation. Again, let us cast our minds back to a situation like Somalia. We can all hope that such a thing will never happen again. To have some assurance, we need to have good systems of law, accountability, clear lines of authority and absolute certainty that senior defence staff cannot intervene in an investigation to engage in a cover-up. That is why we have the accountability measures that currently exist.

In the section of Bill C-15 I propose to amend, we have something quite extraordinary. We have a change in the relationship. For members who are following along, the relevant section of Bill C-15 is clause 4, proposed subsection 18.5(3). Here we find the bill turning the accountability framework on its head. We find the following words: “The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation”. In proposed subsection 18.5(4) we find: “The Provost Marshal shall ensure that the instructions and guidelines issued under subsection (3)”—in other words, by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff— “are available to the public”.

That is what we have in Bill C-15, and that is why my amendments propose to clean it up. My amendments, very clearly, would ensure that the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may, with the consent of the Provost Marshal, in accordance with their respective roles and responsibilities and the principles set out in the accountability framework to which I have just referred, issue instructions and guidelines in writing along with the rationale.

My amendment still meets the government’s purpose. The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff may still issue instructions, but only with the consent of the Provost Marshal and only if consistent with the framework agreement under which our military policing system has been living since 1998.

Am I the only one who thinks that we need these amendments? No, I am not. I felt that it was important to bring them forward when there was significant testimony before the committee coming from none other than the Military Police Complaints Commission. The Military Police Complaints Commission, which was represented by senior counsel, said, “We don’t think it’s intended to be used in any kind of nefarious way, but it sort of calls into question what is and isn’t improper interference”.

That could be called the understatement of the year. It definitely calls into question what could be called improper interference. This was also pointed out by a very significant witness before the committee, a professor of law from the University of Toronto, Professor Kent Roach, who in his substantive presentation to the committee made some very telling points.

There are reasons we have an accountability framework, and it is very important that this legislation not turn that on its head, undo accountability and open the door to completely improper interference in investigations by the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. This is, of course, I hasten to add, not specific to any individuals holding the posts in the current era or in the past. However, as a matter of good principle and good policy, one does not put in place a system that is open to such clear abuse.

The provisions put forward by the Military Police Complaints Commission in its brief, which I want to point out, stated:

The provision in question, in clause 4 of the bill, would create a new NDA subsection 18.5(3), which would expressly authorize the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to direct the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal—the head of the CF military police—in the conduct of specific [military police] investigations.

I should be careful when I speak of investigations in this place and use the initials “MP”. I should quickly clarify that it is military police.

In the Commission’s view, such an express authority is inconsistent with existing arrangements in place since the period following the troubled Somalia deployment which specifically sought to safeguard [military police] investigations from interference by the chain of command.

Further down, the evidence from the Military Police Complaints Commission states:

the proposed authority of the [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff] to direct the [Provost Marshal] regarding the conduct of particular military police investigations set out in subsection 18.5(3) represents an important departure from the status quo. This proposed authority would effectively abrogate key provisions of the Accountability Framework whose purpose was to adapt the command relationship of the [Vice Chief of the Defence Staff] and [the Provost Marshal], such that the latter would retain appropriate independence from the chain of command in the conduct of individual law enforcement investigations.

Similarly, I want to mention that the University of Toronto professor to whom I referred earlier, Kent Roach, also spoke of the critical importance of police independence in investigations.

I am putting forward two small amendments. They do not deter or distract from the overall purpose of this act. Anyone who examines the history of why the accountability framework was brought forward in 1998 will see clearly that it is good public policy. It is a wise provision to ensure independence. It is not just that justice must be done but that it must be seen to be done. Opening the door to this kind of abuse goes against all principles, natural justice, the rule of law and the independence of an investigator from top-down interference.

I know it is unusual to pass amendments at report stage, but these are clear and straightforward and meet the demands and strong recommendations of the Military Police Complaints Commission itself. They make sense, and I urge members on all sides of the House to support these amendments to Bill C-15 at report stage.

The post Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act (Bill C-15) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On March 4th, the committee finished its clause by clause consideration of Bill C-15. They carried clauses sixty-eight through one-hundred-thirty-five, as well as clause eleven quite quickly. Clauses one-hundred-one and eleven were agreed on division. The short title was also agreed to on division. Both NDP amendments (NDP-20 and NDP-21) were negatived. Conservative amendment G-2 was agreed to. Members debated clause seventy-five for nearly the entire meeting, and the clause by clause of the Bill was finally completed to report to the house just before 22:00.

On March 6th, the Committee met for only forty minutes to discuss Supplementary Estimates (C) 2012-13: Votes 1c, 20c and 30c under National Defence. Minster of Defence Peter MacKay was in attendance. Bells were ringing in the house and the meeting was adjourned early without going in camera, contrary to what was planned.

The post Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“We know that Canada has only been a weak supporter of the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations to date,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.  “What the world needs is for Canada to play a stronger role in making this treaty happen – and soften some of its problematic positions.”

Violence fuelled by a poorly regulated global trade in arms – guns, rockets, anti-vehicle mines – and ammunition kills at least 2000 people a day globally.   It also causes millions more to live in fear of being injured, raped, or forced from their homes.

For 20 years, advocates have been lobbying for an international treaty that would regulate all weapons, ammunition, and other equipment used by the military and law enforcement personnel.

“I also urge the Conservatives to take every action possible to ensure that the minority of skeptical countries do not succeed in weakening or derailing the existing achievement of high standards during the upcoming negotiations,” said May.

The Conservatives must help broaden the scope of the treaty to include all types of conventional weapons and help expand the now-limited definition of ‘transfer’ which presently leaves out arms being supplied as gifts, loans, leases, or aid.

Other needed improvements include clearer language related to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and gender-based violence; public reporting mechanisms and strong implementation measures; the exclusion of loopholes for ‘defence cooperation agreements,’ and strong criteria to assess the risk of human rights violations.

“Unfortunately, the positions Canada has taken on certain of the treaty’s draft provisions are inexplicable, and threaten certain aspects of the treaty,” said May.  “This is especially true in regard to corruption and brokering.”

The Conservatives recently improved rules relating to bribery by strengthening the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and yet they are now against treating corruption as a central criterion for evaluating whether an arms deal should go forward.

Similarly, the Conservatives’ stance on brokering undermines Canada’s international commitments and threatens to forestall the adoption of a brokering provision in the treaty.  Their opposition to the extension of legal and judicial obligations to Canadians who broker arms deals outside of the country suggests there are more important considerations than the protection of human life.

On Wednesday, March 6, May asked Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird about these concerns in the House of Commons.   His response cited concerns related to the long-gun registry and duck hunters, further confounding observers.

May also delivered a letter to Minister Baird regarding the ATT.

The post Green Party Calls on Conservatives to Back Effective Arms Treaty appeared first on Elizabeth May.

6 March 2013

Dear Mr. Baird,

I am writing to express my hopes and concerns regarding the upcoming negotiations of the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to be held in New York from March 18-28, 2013.

As the second leg of the first comprehensive global effort to create rigorous, legally binding norms for the control of the international trade in conventional arms, this conference represents a unique historical opportunity.  Its humanitarian import and potential to save lives cannot be overstressed.

My first reason for writing is to commend you for the efforts you and your department have already made to support the success of ATT negotiations to date and to encourage you to take even greater steps to strengthen the provisions of the treaty, upholding the highest standards of transfer controls on arms destined for sites of conflict and armed violence.

I also urge you to take every action possible to ensure that the minority of skeptical countries do not succeed in weakening or derailing the existing achievement of these high standards during the upcoming negotiations. This will require a strong commitment from Canada to be a persuasive proponent of a meaningful and robust treaty that places global human rights above the narrow commercial interests of states.

My second reason for writing is to bring attention to the many flawed aspects of the existing treaty which Canada can improve upon.  In this matter, I would like to echo the calls for improvement already put forward by Ploughshares Canada, Amnesty International, Oxfam Canada, and Oxfam Quebec.  Among other things, these groups have demonstrated the importance of broadening the scope of the treaty to include all arms, their related parts, and ammunition, as well as all methods and types of transfers.  The current draft of the treaty does not include all types of conventional weapons and contains a limited definition of ‘transfer’ which leaves out the possibility of arms being supplied as gifts, loans, leases, or aid.

In order to effectively stop the flow of conventional weapons to sites of conflict and war, the treaty needs to be as comprehensive as possible.  Other needed improvements that these groups have highlighted include the institution of clearer prohibitive language related to the prevention of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and gender-based violence; the requirement of public reporting mechanisms and strong implementation measures; the exclusion of loopholes for ‘defence cooperation agreements,’ and the adoption of strong criteria to assess the risk of human rights violations.

Finally, I would like to comment on several problematic positions that Canada has taken on certain of the treaty’s draft provisions in the first round of negotiations.  Canada cannot act as a global role model and champion of human rights if its actions on the world stage fall short of its standards for measuring its own success at home.  Therefore, I am perplexed by Canada’s unhelpful and internally inconsistent stance on corruption and brokering.

Transparency International says that the international trade in weapons is rife with corruption.  In many poorer countries, corruption not only instigates conflict, it also undermines governments’ capacity to fight poverty.  The negotiations of the ATT offer an effective means to address this problem. Given that Canada recently improved its own rules on bribery with amendments aimed at strengthening the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, why then is Canada against treating corruption as a central criterion for evaluating whether an arms deal should go forward?

Similarly, Canada’s stance on brokering in the negotiations is equally counterproductive to achieving rigorous global standards.  Canada’s opposition to the brokering provision undermines its international commitments to control brokering, including its recent effort to incorporate into regulations its obligations and commitments under the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. This opposition threatens to altogether forestall the adoption of a brokering provision in the treaty.  I am not certain of the principled grounds Canada has for opposing the extension of its legal and judicial responsibilities under the treaty to Canadians who broker arms deals outside of the country, but its reluctance to do so suggests that there are more important imperatives than the protection of human life that justify the exemption.

I profoundly hope that Canada will emerge from the ATT negotiations as a leader in getting the strongest possible treaty.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth May, O.C., M.P.

Member of Parliament for Saanich – Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

The post Letter to Minister Baird Regarding the Arms Trade appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[35a35x5JPHA]

Hon. John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her thoughtful contribution on this issue. I can say that Canada has some of the highest global standards when it comes to the exports of munitions and that we do want to clamp down on corruption. We believe that any treaty negotiated should meet the high standards that Canada has already imposed.

We believe that after so many years of the wasteful, inefficient long-gun registry, the last thing we want the United Nations to do is target law-abiding hunters and duck farmers.

An hon. member: Quack.

The post Question Period – Arms Trade appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This week The Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) began its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

On February 25th, the committee carried clauses two through nineteen, with the exception of clause eleven, which will be re-looked at later. Clause one is also to be considered at the end. Clauses four, six through nine, twelve and thirteen were agreed on division. All fourteen NDP amendments were either declared inadmissible, withdrawn, or defeated.

On February 27th, the committee carried clauses twenty through sixty-seven. Clauses twenty, twenty-two, thirty-three, thirty-five, thirty-six, forty-one , forty-three through forty-seven, forty-nine and sixty-two were agreed on division. All five NDP amendments (NDP-15 through NDP-19) were either declared inadmissible, withdrawn, or defeated.

The committee will resume clause-by-clause consideration next week.

The post Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The meeting on Tuesday October 23, 2012 was held in camera. The committee resumed its study on Maintaining the Readiness of the Canadian Forces. The Minutes can be found here.

The goal of the meeting on October 25, 2012 was to discuss NATO’s strategic concept and Canada’s role in international defence cooperation.  Paul Meyer from the Simons Foundation (http://www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/) was present, as was Peggy Mason. According to Mason, there are key distinctions between a NATO-led mission, a UN-led mission, and a UN-mandated mission with NATO as a lead. A key issue with NATO missions is the current division between political and military control.  Mason advocates for having effective political frameworks alongside the use of force during NATO missions. Meyer emphasized the need for nuclear disarmament, and an effort placed on increasing cyber security.

The post Standing Committee on National Defence (NDDN) appeared first on Elizabeth May.