Elizabeth May brings up Canada's diminished role in peacekeeping, the need to discuss threat of nuclear weapons, in House of Parliament

On Nov. 20 in the House of Commons, MP Elizabeth May (Green Party, Saanich-Gulf Islands) raised concerns in about Canada’s declining role in international peacekeeping and nuclear disarmament. 

She noted that Canada once led in these areas—especially through Lester B. Pearson’s historic work—but now ranks very low in peacekeeping contributions and has closed the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. 

May went on to criticize the Canadian government for refusing to participate in or observe meetings of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, arguing this contradicts the government’s stated belief in a world free of nuclear weapons. 

She noted that there are grassroots efforts across Canada promoting peace, including the Peace Train. 

In response, Robert Oliphant of the Liberal Party (Don Valley West), who is also the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, responded that Canada remains committed to nuclear non-proliferation through the long-standing Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and continues to pursue practical, incremental measures to reduce nuclear risks, including through G7 initiatives and UN work. 

He maintained that meaningful progress requires participation by nuclear-armed states and noted NATO’s position that it will remain a nuclear alliance as long as such weapons exist. 

May countered that Canada should at least observe the nuclear prohibition treaty negotiations, as many NATO allies do. She warned of escalating nuclear danger and urges proactive leadership. 

Oliphant acknowledged her concerns, agreeing that dialogue must continue, and promised to bring her suggestion to the government for consideration. 

Full transcript from Hansard below. 

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked on October 23. That day may not immediately strike all members as one of deep significance, but October 24 every year is United Nations Day, and October 24 was actually the 80th birthday of the United Nations and the 80^th anniversary of the United Nations Charter.

 

I rose and asked a question of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, and she did me the honour of answering my question. It was not a bad answer; I want to share that right away, but we need to expand upon it. 

I asked her where we are in the world of peacekeeping. Of course, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, who was not prime minister at the time he did this, won the Nobel Peace Prize for resolving the Suez crisis and creating UN peacekeepers. It has been a long time since we had any bragging rights among the peacekeeping nations. 

One thing I lament deeply is that the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Training Centre, which was set up in 1994, was closed in 2011. Not only did we close the Pearson centre for peacekeeping, but we dropped to the rank of 69th country in the world on the level of our peacekeeping engagement. 

It is unacceptable for a country like Canada to throw up its hands in the face of threats of war. We are currently witnessing a significant increase in threats of war. 

We did not think 10 to 20 years ago that we could see a land war, with Putin invading Ukraine, but we saw a reversal in the nuclear arms race, thanks to the work of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan and then U.S.S.R. president Mikhail Gorbachev. Those two individuals put the world on track to eliminating nuclear weapons with things like the SALT treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Now we are seeing for the first time, with great horror, the nuclear clock ticking closer to midnight. 

I was gratified when the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs answered me, and I will quote her: “Canada believes in a world free of nuclear weapons, and the current arsenals around the world remain far too large.” 

Canada’s record does not make it clear that we believe in a world free of nuclear weapons. There is now, which has entered into force with enough countries around the world signing and ratifying it, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

I would have been so proud as a Canadian if my country had been a leader in those negotiations, as we were in the Ottawa process to ban land mines. However, we have not signed the treaty. We refused to show up at the negotiations on the treaty. Now that we have meetings of the nations that are parties to the treaty, Canada does not even send an official observer group. 

Those of us parliamentarians who are concerned about nuclear war go to those meetings, as the only examples of Canadian concern, as part of the global parliamentarians who want to end nuclear war. 

We see wonderful efforts from the grassroots across Canada, many participating in something called the peace train. We have the work of leaders like our former ambassador for disarmament, the Hon. Doug Roche. Of course, there is no current ambassador for nuclear disarmament. The position does not exist. 

I hope for a better answer tonight. 

Hon. Robert Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to both address the important question raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands about Canada’s long-standing commitment and leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and also to thank her for continually raising what I believe personally, and I believe our government believes, to be a critically important issue for humanity. 

Canada’s reputation as a champion for peacekeeping and human rights has already been well noted. It did not emerge by accident or nostalgia. It was built because Canada chose to lead, and we continue to choose to lead through diplomacy, through multilateral engagement in institutions and through the difficult technical and often incremental work that actually reduces nuclear risks. That work continues today. 

Our approach is anchored in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, which is the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. The NPT remains the most effective pathway towards verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament. It is based on three pillars or assumptions. 

First, non-nuclear weapon states commit not to acquire these weapons, so no new nuclear states. Second, nuclear weapon states commit to pursue good-faith negotiations on disarmament; they never stop talking. The third is that all parties commit to supporting peaceful uses of nuclear technology. 

We are a nuclear country. We have nuclear energy. We will continue to look at the importance of non-arm uses of nuclear power. Canada takes each of these pillars incredibly seriously. We are fully committed to the universal adoption and full implementation of the NPT. We continue to advocate for halting the spread of nuclear weapons, reducing existing stockpiles and ultimately eliminating them altogether. This work is not theoretical. It is practical. It is sustained. It is results-driven. 

Under Canada’s G7 presidency this year, we convened the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors Group, driving forward nuclear transparency and risk reduction. At the recently concluded UN General Assembly First Committee, Canada urged member states to reject the notion that the geopolitical situation can ever justify slowing progress on nuclear disarmament. Canada has called for, instead, renewed urgency and tangible actions by all parties. 

As the Prime Minister has said, we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear non-compliance and the looming expiration, in February 2026, of the new START arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia underscore the fragility of global norms, including the taboo against nuclear weapons use. 

Canada’s response is twofold: We will increase defence spending to protect Canadians and our sovereignty, and we will double down on diplomacy to advance nuclear disarmament. For the last 30 years, we have been a leader at the UN on the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is a treaty that would ban the production of materials that are needed for nuclear weapons. These are foundational steps we will continue to take. 

We recognize the sincere intentions behind the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. However, Canada’s view, as shared by our NATO allies, is that progress on nuclear disarmament must involve those who actually possess nuclear weapons; otherwise, it is talk. 

As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. Our alliance is equally clear that the circumstances in which such weapons might ever be used are extremely remote. We will continue to stand with our partners around the world to reduce risk. 

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, and he is my friend, for his remarks tonight. I deeply hope that the Government of Canada will change its approach to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As I said earlier, we led the way on the landmines treaty, yet we are standing aside. We may say our NATO allies are not signatories either, but they are observers. It is to our shame as Canadians that we do not even show up to observe and signal our support for the treaty. 

It was a while ago that Albert Einstein said that the splitting of the atom changed everything except man’s mode of thinking, “and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” 

We have been warned. A nuclear holocaust did not occur in the last part of this century through a combination of good luck and divine intervention. We cannot count on luck. We have to take action before a nuclear accident occurs or, worse, the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. 

Hon. Robert Oliphant: Mr. Speaker, this is where I get dangerous and ignore the remarks that have been given to me, and I simply thank the member. 

It is well noted that many of our allies and friends are observers. It is well noted that the conversation must continue. Canada will continue to be a leader. We put our hopes and our aspirations and our work in the NPT, but conversations with everyone engaged is absolutely critical. I am very glad that parliamentarians have been part of those conversations. 

I will take back the suggestion coming from the member. It is earnest. It is heartfelt. It is a smart idea that needs good consideration from our government.