Where is Canada? On eve of First Meeting of State Parties of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Parliamentarians call on government to engage international community on nuclear disarmament

On the eve of the First Meeting of State Parties (1MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), taking place from June 21-23, in Vienna, Senator Marilou McPhedran, MP Elizabeth May, and MP Heather McPherson speak out regarding Canada’s continued refusal to engage in the deliberations, including the common practice of sending an Observer delegation to the international meeting. In stark contrast, other NATO countries Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium have all sent observer delegates.

The TPNW is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of total elimination. It was adopted on 7 July 2017, opened for signature on 20 September 2017, and entered into force on 22 January 2021. There are currently 86 signatories, and 62 state parties. Canada is not a signatory. Since treaty negotiations began in 2017, Canada has consistently voted against all UN TPNW resolutions and the treaty process. According to the International campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) NATO members have been pressured by the US to actively vote against the treaty. The UN has encouraged nonsignatory states to send observer delegations to monitor the upcoming treaty conference. Canada has refused to designate an observer delegation, nor provide any rationale for this position.

Independent Senator Marilou McPhedran has travelled to Vienna to attend 1MSP meetings, joining Canadian civil society groups, advocates, and youth volunteers, who comprise the only Canadian presence at the meetings. The hashtag #WHEREISCANADA is trending on social media. She joins other parliamentarians from other non-treaty states, such as Scotland, England, and Australia, who are seeking to draw attention to the absence of their respective governments from the TPNW treaty table.

Sen. McPhedran: “If the Government will not heed the overwhelming majority of Canadians on this issue, it falls to individual parliamentarians to do so. Not only was Canada not at the table for these negotiations, they weren’t even in the room. This is a total shirking of responsibility and global leadership. Canada once led on disarmament issues, such as the Ottawa Convention on landmines and the abolition of cluster munitions, so the government’s total refusal to engage in any significant manner towards nuclear disarmament is appalling. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s repeated threats of nuclear escalation puts this issue into clear context. Deterrence and containment are insufficient;
what is required is full disarmament.”

Elizabeth May, MP: “I am deeply troubled by the refusal of Canada to join the legally-binding Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). But not only have we refused to sign, or ratify the Treaty,
we will not even have a delegation to observe this critical first meeting. When I raised this in the House, the Hon Parliamentary secretary replied the government was committed to nuclear disarmament, but how can this claim be reconciled with our refusal to even observe the first meeting. Other NATO allies are there. In the face of Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling, how can we fail to even observe?” Heather McPherson, MP: “Now, more than ever, the world must recognize the existential threat to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. As we watch in horror the illegal invasion and war in Ukraine, we must all understand the urgency and importance of nuclear disarmament. If the world does not want to
be held hostage by men like Vladimir Putin, nuclear disarmament is the only option. Canada has an obligation to use its voice, its power, and its influence.”

A 2021 Nanos Research poll found that 74 per cent of Canadians want the government to join the treaty, with just 14 per cent opposed. Furthermore, 73 per cent think that Canada should join even if, as a member of NATO, it might come under pressure from the United States not to do so. 74 MPs and Senator have signed the ICAN parliamentary pledge, and cities such a Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal have endorsed the nuclear ban treaty. Currently, there are more than 13,000 nuclear weapons spread across the globe. Annual spending on
nuclear armaments surpassed $82.4 Billion USD in 2021. Through an ever changing and challenging security environment, from security threats of climate change to the COVID-19 pandemic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nuclear weapons spending has steadily increased, with no resulting measurable improvement on the security environment.

Where is Canada?

-30-

For more information, contact:
Office of Sen. Marilou McPhedran
John Inca Anderson
Director, Parliamentary Affairs
Johninca.anderson@sen.parl.gc.ca

The post Where is Canada? On eve of First Meeting of State Parties of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Parliamentarians call on government to engage international community on nuclear disarmament appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Thursday was a typically long day in parliament on Zoom. My birthday treat was that Mike Morrice covered for me over lunchtime (BC time) so I could meet a group of women friends from our old Newcomers Club.

Since the beginning of May, these 17-hour days are the norm. Through the collaboration of NDP and Liberals, the rules changed to have the option of sitting until midnight. This week, I worked from SGI, benefiting from the virtual rules under the pandemic, to avoid the carbon of flying whenever I can.  Later today, I will be back on a plane, landing in Ottawa around 2 am and back to work a few hours later.

When doing Parliament from home, it is odd to be fully awake, make-up applied and dressed for parliament from my dining room table at 7 AM, as Parliament opens at 10 AM ET.  On Thursday, I was all set to present my petition, with over 5,000 signatures, to call for the ban on the export of thermal coal, but as is ever more common, the proceedings went sideways before they even started. The Liberals moved to shut down debate on Bill C5, a bill to remove some mandatory minimums, and then to avoid Conservative Party use of procedural delay tactics, the government moved that we skip everything under the rubric called “Routine Proceedings” and get to the business the government wanted that day. Presenting petitions being part of Routine Proceedings, no petitions on Thursday, but lots of debate. As my staff arrives in the constituency office around 9, I shift over there and then shift back as they leave at the end of the day and keep going on zoom parliament until 9 pm (midnight in Ottawa). And on Friday, I was again all set for the coal petition, but again cancelled – this time due to a Conservative procedural delay.

As I watch my colleagues, it is obvious that the long days are taking their toll. People who are usually articulate struggle for the right word. People who are usually sharp say things like, “I have forgotten what I already said and where I am now.”  I keep thinking of the title from that old movie about dance marathons, “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?”  I am so tired I can hardly think straight.

Parliament has this odd tradition of midnight sittings for the month of June. From when I was first elected, in 2011, we have had midnight sittings in June every year save one.  But this year, for the first time, we have had midnight sittings since the beginning of May.  It does not produce great results. Who could be surprised that taking a toxic partisan pressure cooker and adding exhaustion and crankiness does not make for productivity?

It also means that important exchanges, occurring near midnight do not get much notice. I included the link to my 7 minutes of questions to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Hon Joyce Murray, in last week’s missive.  I want to draw attention to one of our exchanges HERE. You’ll find it at 4:36 into the 7-minute clip. The setting is parliament, but we are not in a normal sitting. We are sitting as Committee of the Whole, and ministers come with a phalanx of departmental officials sitting at a table in front of the benches, with large briefing books piled in front of them. The senior civil servants pass notes to the minister as questions are asked – specific numbers for what has been spent – or ignored. My 7-minute opportunity was just before midnight.

As I mentioned in my opening, the work on the fisheries committee is really collaborative and non-partisan. I join the committee as often as I can and I have good luck, with MPs letting me have a bit of their time to question witnesses. Concern for the health of Pacific salmon is shared regardless of partisan stripe.

I was not surprised that Conservative MP Tracy Gray, Kelowna-Lake Country, asked good questions, including a topic I had intended to bring up – whether DFO was concerned about polystyrene in the oceans. The minister answered that DFO wanted to “get polystyrene out” of the marine environment. This set things up well for my question. I have been tracking the very weak regulations being developed by Environment Canada (ECCC) for months now. I have asked about the loopholes in the single-use plastic regulations in Question Period. They plan to allow some single-use items – like plastic forks – to be exempted if they are capable of being washed and reused. The regs will not cover water bottles. And even though polystyrene products, things designed for use in the marine environment like floats and life vests, are not single-use items, the little bubbles of polystyrene are a major contaminant on our shorelines and contaminate the oceans.  Polystyrene breaks down and the tiny pieces of plastic are a huge problem. Currently, the draft regulations do not touch polystyrene. We need to regulate to prevent polystyrene from being used in products designed for use on docks and vessels.

So my question to Minister Murray was pretty important and her answer was a stunner. As her earlier answer had been that DFO wanted to get polystyrene out of the oceans, I asked if she was working to get the new plastic regulations to keep it out of the ocean in the first place.  She replied that the plastic regulations were being developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and “not a partnership with DFO.”  I went back and listened several times to make sure I had not misheard.  Our regulations against single-use plastics are driven by the idea we are keeping plastics out of the ocean, yet DFO, the department with the greatest focus on the oceans, is not involved?  Clearly, I need help getting Joyce Murray’s answer shared and pressure brought on ECCC to make the draft regulations more effective.

Another debate just before midnight this week focused on my earlier question about the increased risk of nuclear proliferation due to so-called Small Modular Reactors or SMRs.

The parliamentary secretary’s reply was lamentable. There was more focus on SMRs last week. Key critics of the industry, Dr. Susan O’Donnell, former MPP Evelyn Gigantes and Dr. Gordon Edwards appeared before the Science Committee on Thursday night. I had no luck getting any donated minutes to ask questions. The MPs – Liberals, Conservatives and NDP alike – overwhelmingly asked softball questions of industry witnesses.  The stand-out exception was Bloc MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas.  He focused on getting more information about the risks of the SMRs, especially as they relate to the spread of nuclear weapons.  One witness who is getting lots of media is Chris Keefer, president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. He confirmed to the committee his organization has 44 members.  Total. All individuals. I have never seen any NGO with fewer than 50 members get so much attention.

Those opposing the waste of resources for something as dangerous as reprocessing plutonium need to make it clear that SMRs are not necessary to meet climate goals.  In fact, any new government investment in nuclear is an obstacle to climate action.  The opportunity costs alone bury the experiment.

This week also included World Oceans Day, for which I had a 60-second opportunity.

It is important to be in Ottawa this week. On Friday, C-226, my bill to create a programme on environmental justice, combatting environmental racism, comes up for its final hour of debate at second reading.  I will stay put in Ontario until I get through the whole rest of the torture known as “silly season” by all who live through June in Parliament.

Wish me luck. 

With love and thanks!

Elizabeth

P.S.

Friends in the Lyme Disease community, take note of this five-year report required by my bill, passed in 2014. I will include my critique of the report next week.

Check out this webinar from the Global Greens! Our hugely successful Global Greens webinars continue with the next in our Spotlight Series!

Join us on Tuesday, 14 June at 11 am UTC, (4 am PDT) for

‘Green International Action: Think Global, Act Local’

An hour webinar led by our network, focusing on bringing global perspectives and action into national and regional contexts.

An expert panel of speakers and activists will share their experiences of working in the international Greens movement. Helping give you the tools to bring global work into your country, and really make a difference to our cause.

Facilitator Vivienne Glance will be joined by:

Pegah Edalatian, International Coordinator for the German Greens

Melanie Chapman, Former International Secretary, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Snigdha Tiwari, Climate Working Group Co-Convenor

Lucy Kagendo, Climate Working Group Co-Convenor

Mohamed Awad, President of the Egyptian Green Party, COP27 host country

Please register and share with your networks. It’s our connection that makes us strong.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C., and the Green Party of Canada Parliamentary Leader.

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – June 12 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Time: 07/06/2022 23:31:50
Context: Question

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at Adjournment Proceedings. I have to say the hour is awfully appropriate. I am going to be following up on a question I asked in question period on May 2, related to what are called small modular reactors and their connection to nuclear proliferation, so it certainly is appropriate that the clock is approaching midnight. It reminds me very much that there is something called a doomsday clock that is kept up to date by the bulletin of atomic scientists. I just checked it and it shows we are 100 seconds to midnight.

The combined factors are increased threats of nuclear war brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as the significant risk to the whole planet brought on by the climate crisis. These issues are related, and I related them in my question in the House on May 2. The answer from the Minister of Natural Resources was not sufficient and that is why I have brought it forward this evening.

The so-called small modular reactors are not part of any solution to the climate crisis. Moreover, they are untested and essentially experimental. Last, I again draw the attention of this place to the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Just to walk through those three points, the Minister of Natural Resources has said frequently in this place that there is no pathway to climate solutions that does not include small modular reactors. That is simply not true. Reducing greenhouse gases involves phasing out fossil fuels, cancelling the TMX and not pursuing Bay du Nord. These are tangible things that have nothing to do with nuclear. Nuclear is actually in the way. It is highly expensive. Per tonne of carbon reduced, it is about the most expensive way we can go and it also has a long timeline before we see any results from a decision to go with nuclear.

The fact that these reactors are untested and essentially experimental has not had enough attention in this country. I turned to an expert in the area, Professor Allison M. Macfarlane, as a source. She is actually the former chairperson of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is currently at the University of British Columbia.

She told this to the CBC:

Nobody knows what the numbers are, and anybody who gives you numbers is selling you a bridge to nowhere because they don’t know…

Nobody has ever set up a molten salt reactor and used it to produce electricity.

A molten salt reactor is exactly what the Government of Canada and the Government of New Brunswick are throwing tens of millions of dollars at, to a private-sector operator who proposes this and has been approved to go ahead and build it. It is being reviewed at this moment, but the money is flowing toward a molten salt reactor that will use plutonium from the spent fuel at Point Lepreau in order to create this unproven technology and allegedly to produce electricity.

It is all very much in question, except for one thing. There is a huge risk in taking plutonium from spent fuel. It is the kind of risk that existing nuclear non-proliferation treaties are very careful to prevent us from doing. If we are promoting a global plutonium economy, even a tiny, infinitesimal amount of plutonium in the hands of terrorists could create a dirty bomb. In the hands of other countries around the world, there is the very large risk that they will produce a nuclear weapon.

We had this experience in 1974 when Canada gave India one of our CANDU reactors. It turns out that these new SMRs, as reported in The Globe and Mail this week, produce far more nuclear waste than conventional reactors. They produce two times to 30 times more.

Therefore, I ask the government to think twice. This is a mistake. This is radioactive snake oil.

The post “Small Modular Reactors” are not part of a solution to the climate crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Speaker: Ms. May
Time: 01/06/2022 21:46:18
Context: Motions\Debate

I am part of a global party. It does not come up very often in this place that I am a member of Parliament in Canada, within a family of global Greens. One of those global Greens is Pekka Haavisto, who is the minister of foreign affairs for Finland and a very germane part of the debate tonight. Up until December, a friend of mine, Per Bolund, co-leader of the Green Party of Sweden, was their deputy prime minister, but the Swedish Greens just left the Swedish coalition for reasons I need not get into here.

As Greens we have a profound commitment to peace and non-violence, which means, saying it just as clearly as I can, that I am no fan of NATO. Greens are not, generally, because it is a military. It is a defensive alliance, but it is not without issues for those of us who are committed to non-violence. It has been an issue for us to know that we absolutely, unequivocally, believe that Russia’s attack on Ukraine is the sole responsibility of Vladimir Putin and that we are on the side of Ukraine and Ukrainians. We are supportive of every action our government has taken, but it is not without difficulty for us.

How do Greens feel about Canada being in NATO? In an ideal world, when the Warsaw Pact ended, NATO would have ended too. That is how we see it. There is a big “if”. It is one of the main things I want to talk about tonight. NATO’s continued involvement in the world does create tensions that we probably did not need if we had had the former Soviet Union and the United States pursue nuclear disarmament. When Mikhail Gorbachev was championing perestroika and glasnost, he also picked up the phone and called former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. He asked, “Do you want to end nuclear weapons, because I do” and Ronald Reagan said, “I do too”. By the way, the reason I know that is because Mikhail Gorbachev told that story to a small group of people in a room in Rio de Janeiro at Rio+5. I was there because I was a part of a committee that Mikhail Gorbachev co-chaired.

In the years that followed, the efforts toward nuclear disarmament faltered. I believe that Donald Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin and the two of them decided, or at least Putin decided, “Let’s not get rid of nuclear weapons. Let’s slow down the talks. Let’s not have nuclear non-proliferation discussions any more. Let’s not have nuclear disarmament discussions any more.” It has made the world less safe.

In the context of Vladimir Putin and Russia, wars are generally illegal. It is hard to know when a war is exactly legal because many of them are founded on lies: the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. We can make up a story and say we need to attack this other country just because, but there are some wars that we know were morally justified, such as the Allied Forces confronting fascism in the Second World War. Many of our parents, my parents and many people in this room had family members engaged in a war that, as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood just said, it is the young people who suffer. In wars it is the young people who die, but with some wars we can see the moral justification.

In this case, supporting Ukraine really matters, but I question what Canada should be doing in NATO. I want to share that with all of my colleagues as I conclude my remarks. I will, spoiler alert, agree with a motion that Finland and Sweden should be supported in joining NATO because that is what they asked for right now. As I said, my colleagues, who are in the global Green Party, global Green parliamentarians, asked for that. We respect the decisions made within countries by our colleagues in the Green Party, so no question from Greens. We support that Finland and Sweden should be supported in joining NATO.
Let me ask the question. The budget of 2022 said clearly that we are going to have a foreign policy review. In that foreign policy review, I hope we will ask the question: Should Canada stay in NATO?

The post Canada should stay in NATO to advocate for nuclear disarmament appeared first on Elizabeth May.

My week was dominated by completing work with Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Caucus on the Green Party submission to the Emission Reduction Plan required by the so-called Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act. Just a sidenote that it is wonderful to be engaged in open and collegial work between MPs and the party. Not commenting on the past- just celebrating progress! I wrote about the public consultation process on climate last week, emphasizing the deadline for submissions was Friday, January 14.

On-line, climate groups were all alerting supporters to get comments in by January 14th. Then on Tuesday, I had an email from one of my favourite friends in the world, Janice Harvey in New Brunswick. She was getting ready to assign the on-line survey to one of her university classes and sharp-eyed, she noticed that the government website actually said comments were due “before January 14.” She asked me if I was sure the deadline was the 14th- or could “before January 14” mean January 13th? I sent a quick personal email to two people I regard as friends – one is the environment minister and the other his parliamentary secretary. Pretty quickly, I got a reply that the deadline was, in fact, midnight the 13th!

I started letting people know. And it got a bit confusing. I am super grateful that Amita Kuttner, our new interim leader, is prepared to treat Green Party members as activists who would want to know. The party sent out an alert (if you are a Green member, you should have gotten it) that the deadline was 24 hours earlier than we had thought.

On Friday, Environment and Climate Change issued a news release:

“Since the formal engagement process launched on December 10, 2021, the federal government received approximately 20,000 public submissions. In response to the overwhelming interest and useful feedback received so far, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, is extending the deadline for public submissions to the 2030 ERP by one week to 11:59 p.m. PST on January 21, 2022.”

Considering we had over 100,000 submissions on the electoral reform process, back when I was on the special committee struck to deliver on Trudeau’s promise that 2015 would be our last election under first part the post, (a Goldie Oldie of the Broken Promises Hit Parade), 20,000 does not strike me as a big number. With an additional week I hope we can encourage thousands more to demand stronger climate action. Here again is the excellent tool kit from Climate Messengers: https://link.climatemessengers.ca/consult

One area of controversy is the role, if any, of nuclear energy in climate solutions. As a both climate activist and also an anti-nuclear activist, I went through a real crisis back when I was Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada. The whole organization went through a profound re-think. Green Parties around the world, including Canada, have also grappled with the question. Some members do not agree with our position.

If nuclear was any possible part of a solution to the threat of global warming, how could we rule it out?

It turns out, that is a very big IF and the answer to this day is NOT. Sure, Minister of Natural Resources, the Hon Jonathan Wilkinson says repeatedly “there is no pathway to Net Zero that does not include nuclear.” The federal Department of Natural Resources (formerly Energy, Mines and Resources) has historically favoured the nuclear industry. Canadians have invested tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for nuclear power. Then, under Harper, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and its remaining assets were sold for a song ($15 million!) to that favoured and coddled insider group, SNC Lavalin.

My favourite quote on nukes was Fred Knelman’s great line from the 1980s, “Nuclear is a future technology whose time has passed.”

In the current context, nuclear is in the way of the decarbonization of our economy. The way the Green Party has analyzed it, we need to test any public energy investments for climate action against clear criteria:

· Per dollar invested, how many tons of carbon are eliminated?

· Per dollar invested, how many jobs are created?

· How quickly can the technology/investment be up and running, reducing emissions?

By these simple criteria, nuclear scores far below energy conservation and energy efficiency improvements. It is miles behind solar energy installation, wind power, or geothermal. It is capital intensive and creates few jobs. It takes over a decade, at a minimum, to move from concept to approval to construction. When poor performers take public dollars, there is an opportunity cost. New nuclear is an obstacle to a zero carbon economy.

On top of that, it involves uranium mining which has traditionally involved abuses of indigenous rights as well as environmental contamination. It involves the creation of high-level nuclear waste that must be contained from the biosphere for at least a quarter of a million years – with no known technology to do so. As well, nuclear energy inevitably increases the risk of nuclear proliferation for military purposes.

Now, we have the new propaganda for “Small Modular Reactors” – as though there is something magical about “SMRs” that would make new nuclear worthy of consideration. Again, the industry consortium promoting new nuclear, is led by SNC Lavalin. The federal subsidies going to New Brunswick where Point Lepreau’s high level nuclear waste essentially sitting in swimming pools, wlil be the source of “harvested” fuel. No existing SMR exists. This technology is experimental and unproven for commercial use. And First Nations in New Brunswick object to, yet again, violating indigenous rights.

https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/peskotomuhkati-nation-nuclear-reactor-testing-new-brunswick-small-modular-reactors/

Now the nuclear debate is raging in Europe after a committee of the European Parliament suggested that nuclear could be rated as a transitional form of energy. In any earlier consideration, nuclear has been ruled out in any climate friendly technologies, such as under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, or from any consideration for the Paris Agreement. Now the whole notion that the conditions that were suggested to make nuclear meet those tests has been called into question. The hypotheticals to be achieved would appear to put it out of the running. The vote in the European Parliament could be very close indeed. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/misunderstanding-could-block-nuclear-from-claiming-green-eu-label-industry-warns/

A reminder to please tune in next Saturday to hear from Interim leader Amita Kuttner, Mike Morice and me at our Saanich-Gulf Islands Green AGM! The link below is to RSVP. Please join us.

Hope you and your family are being careful and staying safe. John and I finally got our booster shots this week. But we know the vaccines alone do not provide full protection. Masks and distancing rules continue. Be well and healthy. And eventually, we can get to the other side of this. Let’s hope humanity learns some lessons!

Have a great week!
Love,
Elizabeth

PS:
Here is the link to register for the SGI Green AGM – on Saturday, January 22, 2022, from 2-4 pm BC time.

Please RSVP here if you would like to attend the AGM online via Zoom. Note that this is a two-step process. After you register you will receive an email from Zoom asking that you register to get the meeting link. Hope to see you there!

Saanich-Gulf Islands Greens
http://www.sgigreenparty.ca/

The post Good Sunday Morning – January 16 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada, will meet the press to discuss the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement and its serious implications for Canada’s economic independence, national security, democracy, and environment.

When: 11:30 a.m., Thursday September 27, 2012
Where: Room 130S (Charles Lynch Theatre), Center Block, Ottawa

The post Elizabeth May To Hold Press Conference About Canada-China Investment Agreement appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Wednesday, February 29 this study continued. In the meeting, witnesses were present from the Canadian Nuclear Association, Vale Canada Limited, and, in videoconference from Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Mining Association. Although the companies differ in areas of expertise, their similar circumstances led to many common issues. The companies are all located in remote areas with large native populations surrounding them, and have difficulty gaining the skilled workers they need in order to function efficiently. All of the companies mentioned partnering with the community in order to promote a predominantly local workforce, but find they can do little beyond providing scholarships and encouragement. They require government assistance to update much of their infrastructure, and promote education in primary and secondary schools. The Mining association raised the issue of the Protection of Species Act, which does not allow disturbances in many Northern areas. In their opinion, this hindered development of communities, as well as expansion of their company.

The committee adjourned, and proceeded to go in camera to discuss committee business.

The post Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (HUMA) appeared first on Elizabeth May.