The post Greens join in multi-party press conference to mark the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons coming into force appeared first on Elizabeth May.

And August already!

Let us celebrate August 1st – Emancipation Day! Marking the passing of the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act in the British Parliament. In our Green Party release supporting the official designation of August 1st in Canada as Emancipation Day (as in many countries around the world), we made note of the fact that millions of people are still living as slaves.

Products we think of as “treats” come from industries dependent on slave labour – such as those popular rings of farmed shrimp and any chocolate bar not marked “Fair Trade.”  Marking our colonial legacy and the existence of historic slavery is important; so too is confronting modern slavery.

We are also coming up this week to the very somber 75th Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thanks to work from a grassroots peace movement effort “Bells for Peace,” connecting me through local peace activist William Geimer, I asked the Speaker of the House to approve the engagement of the bells of the House of Commons Peace Tower.  Dominion Carillonneur  Dr. Andrew McCready will rings the bells on August 6th and 9th, with the largest bell, the Bourdon, striking each day 75 times.

In a powerful opinion piece in yesterday’s Globe and Mail, Hiroshima survivor, Setsuko Thurlow, framing her plea around the ringing of the Peace Tower bells, urges our government to acknowledge Canada’s role in the nuclear attack. It was our uranium in the bomb and our National Research Council that played an active role in the Manhattan Project.

She calls for something we Greens have been demanding for years- that Canada sign and ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. It’s time.

Meanwhile, much news this week poked holes in oft-repeated pro-oil propaganda.

This one article refutes (without meaning to) a whack of oil lobby lies:

The story in a nutshell is that with the drop in demand for oil, space opened up in existing pipelines and long-term rail contracts created empty rail cars and huge monthly costs:

“Cenovus said last week it was spending as much as C$20 million per month for its suspended rail program, one-quarter of the costs when it is fully active, but now generating no revenue to offset expenses.”

But don’t worry say our friends in the oil patch. When things recover there will be demand to keep all planned pipelines full and keep moving oil by rail.

So if anyone ever says to you, “if you block pipelines, oil will move to rail,” this article proves that even with more pipelines, the industry plans to continue moving oil by rail.

Two other stories this week confirm that if oil is not dead, it is on life support.

The first was the news that global oil giant, Total S.A. of France, is writing off over $9 billion in assets in Canada’s oil sands.  Total has projected that global oil demand will peak by 2030, with the price of Brent crude staying at roughly $50/barrel for the long term. That price is well below break-even for bitumen.

The second bit of oil future news came from the sector that does the drilling for oil across Canada.

“The Petroleum Services Association of Canada is cutting its 2020 Canadian drilling forecast for a third time as the industry remains mired in a slump expected to extend well into the second half of the year.

“The association says it now expects just 2,800 wells will be drilled in Canada this year, down from a nearly 50-year low of 3,100 in its revised forecast in April.”

Projections for demand continue to be revised downward.

And to cap off some good news for a change – two more developments.

Good news that Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson has reversed his earlier decision on environmental review of the Vista coal mine.

The owner, Coalspur Mine operations of Hinton Alberta, plans to massively expand operations, mining thermal coal for export. Searching on-line to determine who owns Coalspur Mine Operations, I find it listed as a sole proprietorship with ten employees.  That’s not a typo. Dun and Bradstreet lists the company as having ten employees.

Much of the coal mined in Canada is metallurgical coal for steel making. Mining coal intended for burning for electricity overseas is an outrage in a climate emergency.

Wilkinson’s decision is good news, but the project could well still be approved. Those who have followed anything I have said about Bill C-69, the Liberal version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, will know I think it is close to useless.

This review will be a first big test. The fact the decision to review was at the discretion of the minister confirms that C-69 is just too discretionary!

And last bit of good news and a big thank you to BC Green MLAs Adam Olsen and Sonia Furstenau.

BC Greens have established clear lines before they will support the NDP efforts to change BC Hydro rules. Bill 17 would eliminate the potential economic benefits for First Nations in the development of renewable energy.  It would pull the rug right out from under them – with zero consultation. Bill 17 was denounced by First Nations leaders, notably President of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council, Judith Sayers, but not by many environmental groups.  I am grateful that Dogwood sounded the alarm.

So on this Sunday morning when for every year for the last dozen or so I would normally be decked out in feather boas and beads for Vancouver Pride, this year I am blowing kisses to all virtually. Mark Pride events in your heart as COVID keeps us from crowding the streets with our usual exuberant celebration of LGBTQ2s+ rights.

Have a great rest of your three day weekend!!!

Love and Happy Pride!

Elizabeth

This weekly newsletter is published by Elizabeth’s EDA in Saanich-Gulf Islands. You can sign up for it here.

The post Good Sunday Morning – August 2 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, I completely support the supply day motion. I first raised this issue in the House on October 25, 2016, that these negotiations were to begin, and that Canada should play a leadership role. I raised it again on February 22, 2017. I am very concerned that Canada is not there.

I was one of 900 recipients of the Order of Canada who have asked that Canada play a leadership role in these negotiations, so I put it to the hon. member. He is absolutely right that Canada played a lead role in the effort to get rid of land mines, and we undertook those negotiations knowing that both countries that used land mines the most were not at the table.

The United States and Russia were not at the table. They plan to modernize their nuclear weapons regime. I was a watcher during the Cuban missile crisis. I remember it. We do not want our children to have nuclear nightmares. We must negotiate at the UN for nuclear disarmament. I hope the Liberals will reconsider.

Kevin Lamoureux

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing I can do in response to the member is to assure the leader we have a government that is, in fact, progressing and moving forward on the issue, as I have indicated. Canada led 159 countries in bringing forward a UN resolution that brings nuclear powers to the table to work pragmatically toward disarmament through a fissile material cut-off treaty. The fissile material is the explosive stuff. That is what causes the reactions. This is Canada playing a leadership role on the important file where we have nuclear power states at the table with us. We can all be proud of that fact.

—–

Elizabeth May

Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collègue de son discours, très fort, sur lequel je suis tout à fait d’accord.

Je suis une des officière de l’Ordre du Canada. J’ai signé, avec les autres, la déclaration selon laquelle le Canada doit se joindre à ces négociations essentielles pour la sécurité de la Terre.

I am just back, today actually, from the United Nations for work on the Oceans Conference, and the subject of Canada’s absence in these nuclear disarmament talks came up. I was asked by other delegates why it was that Canada was not participating, as under the new Liberal government it has been seen that Canada is back. We have played a constructive role in the Paris negotiations. The absence of Canada in these talks makes people wonder why. This is a role Canada traditionally had played: Lloyd Axworthy led the negotiations for the landmines treaty and the Ottawa process, for an example. It baffles me that we are not at the table. I wonder if my hon. colleague has any theories as to why Canada is staying away from these talks.

Alexandre Boulerice – Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I also thank her for signing the letter to the current Prime Minister. I obviously congratulate the Green Party for the efforts it has been making these past few years in the fight for world peace.

First, the Liberal government’s response was to hide behind the fissile material cut-off treaty. Working on adopting this treaty is fine. However, the negotiations on banning the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons are not a substitute for the efforts needed to achieve nuclear disarmament.

It also seems as though the Liberal government is hiding behind Canada’s membership in NATO, and right now it is giving in to pressure from the United States, which told its NATO allies to oppose the negotiations.

Canada has no reason to follow President Trump on this issue. Canada’s membership in NATO does not mean that it must vote only with the nuclear states.

Canada should learn from the Netherlands. They also belong to NATO, but they are taking part in the negotiations.

——

Elizabeth May

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, though, and the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will not be surprised that I disagree, this is not an NDP motion to engage the world in action. This is a United Nations negotiation that is taking place. It is being led by Austria, Ireland, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and Sweden, countries with whom we have strong relationships, countries with whom we are in strong trading relationships, it is not far fetched that we start the negotiations and bring others in. I note that Iran is actually in these negotiations. I also note that Canada started out in the lead on landmines and cluster munitions when the countries that used landmines and cluster munitions were not in the room.

The question is, while the United Nations negotiate, and this is my question for my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot, what possible advantage is there for Canada? As a country, it wants to show leadership in the world. To ignore negotiations where there is even a chance that the process of negotiation would bring in those countries who are now, as he said himself, modernizing their nuclear weapons and endangering our entire world.

Hon. Kevin Sorenson – Battle River—Crowfoot

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government today has determined that there is not a lot of benefit to being at those kinds of exercises. I am not certain why they decided not to be engaged in them. The Liberals went to their convention where they said they were going to be involved in those kinds of exercises and today they are saying they are not worthwhile.

In preparation for this debate I went back to 2007 to a meeting that we had with my good friend Doug Roche, a previous Alberta member of Parliament, and senator Ernie Rigour from Project Plowshares. In response to my hon. colleague from Toronto who spoke prior to the question by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the concerns that they talked about that day seemed in some regard to already have taken place, so the threat is even greater.

When the threat becomes greater, we must be vigilant in what we do but we should not be spending time on things that perhaps may not be effective.

——

Elizabeth May

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the member for Calgary Shepard described what Ronald Reagan had done as though he was happy with incremental work to remove nuclear weapons from the world.

I had the honour of working with Mikhail Gorbachev. He related a personal story to me of the moment he got frustrated with the pace of negotiations. He picked up the phone and told his staff, “I want to call the president of the United States.” Ronald Reagan personally took his call. Mikhail Gorbachev asked him, “Mr. President, do you want to get rid of nuclear weapons? I do.” Ronald Reagan replied, “Yes, I do.” Gorbachev said, “I’m afraid all our negotiators are going to do is drink vodka forever and just talk, but we need to do this.” They intended to do it.

The world’s political leadership have dropped the ball. It is time for us to pick it up.

The speech given by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay said what I am about to ask him, but I would like him to reiterate. Why on earth is Canada not at the table with nations like the Netherlands, a NATO ally, working to raise the political momentum towards getting rid of nuclear weapons?

Richard Cannings – South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that comment, because I totally agree. We cannot get anywhere if we are not talking. The Prime Minister said the other day that he thinks these negotiations are “useless”. They are becoming more useless to Canada because we are being written off the world stage as a real player in negotiations around the diplomacy of getting rid of these weapons.

Canada has to be at the talks. We have to be working. We have to lead as much as we can. The major players will come to the table when they see the rest of the world working on this. They are all human beings, as we are. As the member said, they probably want to get rid of these weapons as well. We have to create that space, the climate to make that happen.

The post Questioning Canada’s lack of engagement in nuclear disarmament negotiations appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, Canada has led in UN negotiations to ban biological weapons, ban chemical weapons, ban cluster munitions, and ban landmines. Just last week the organizational meetings began for the next frontier: to ban nuclear weapons. But Canada was not there, while 101 other countries were. I would like to ask if the hon. Prime Minister can assure this House that Canada will play a leading role once again to band with the world to end the threat of nuclear war.

Matt DeCourcey – Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the concern from my friend, I want to assure her and all Canadians that we are working hard to ensure that our children inherit a world free from nuclear weapons, but that requires real concrete action. That is what Canada is doing for the first time ever. Let me be clear, that it was the first time ever that Canada rallied 177 states to support a resolution calling for a fissile material cut-off treaty. This is genuine and tangible change, and this will help phase out nuclear weapons and allow us to get to a world free from nuclear weapons for our children.

The post Parliament: Question on Canada’s Lack of Participation in UN Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations 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.

“We must take time to remember and acknowledge the horrendous suffering and destruction that resulted from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and take action to make nuclear disarmament a reality,” said Green Party of Canada Leader Elizabeth May.

More than 100,000 people were killed instantly on those terrible days and survivors have been left to deal with the aftermath of the radiation, still being felt today.

The Green Party of Canada has a long standing policy calling for global nuclear disarmament. We recognize an urgent need for global nuclear disarmament and the conversion of military industries in Canada and worldwide into peaceful and restorative industries.

The post August 6th is Hiroshima Day appeared first on Elizabeth May.