Ukraine and five other countries leaving Canada-led treaty that banned landmines
Ukraine and five other European countries are leaving an international treaty that bans the production and use of landmines. Nearly 30 years ago, Canada played an integral part in the creation of what's known as the Ottawa Treaty, which is starting to unravel in the face of Russian aggression.
'Right now, Ukraine is becoming, without a doubt, the most corrupted part of the world in terms of the number of landmines being planted, certainly by Russia and by Ukraine itself,' former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy said in an interview with CTVNews.ca.
'And I think if these other Baltic countries continue on their borders, you're going to have what will clearly be an area of huge risk to civilians for the next half-century.'
Axworthy took a leading role in creating the treaty while serving as Canada's top diplomat under former prime minister Jean Chretien between 1996 and 2000. The treaty was signed in Ottawa in 1997, a year after Axworthy publicly challenged the world to ban the weapons, which can remain dormant and deadly for decades and have been shown to disproportionately maim and kill civilians.
'The thing about landmines is it's not just a risk in the immediate term – a landmine's sitting around for 75, 80, 100 years,' Axworthy, now 85, said from Ottawa.
This year, Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all announced plans to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, becoming the first signatories to do so. All six nations share borders with Russian territory. While Russian use of landmines in Ukraine has been widespread, Ukraine has responded by planting landmines of its own – despite ratifying the treaty in 2005.
Axworthy fears the recent withdrawals could put the Ottawa Treaty and other international arms control measures at risk.
'I think Zelenskyy's decision to actually withdraw from the treaty is a serious one,' Axworthy said. 'I'm afraid that could be a catalyst for further resignations.'
Lloyd Axworthy
Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy looks on before being presented with the 30th Pearson Peace Medal during a ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Wednesday, May 24, 2017. (Fred Chartrand/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
Although more than 160 countries have adopted the Ottawa Treaty, about three dozen never signed it, including the United States, Russia, China, Israel, Iran and both North and South Korea.
'At the time, we came very close to having Bill Clinton sign the treaty, but he got pushback by the Pentagon,' Axworthy recalled. 'But in so doing, they made a very clear commitment that the United States would continue to honour 90 per cent of the standards in the treaty, and also continue to be a major supporter of demining and aid to victims.'
The U.S. stance shifted in 2024, when the Biden administration authorized the transfer of landmines to Ukraine in response to Russian use. Since then, the dismantling of USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) under the Trump administration has hobbled demining efforts overseas.
Recent landmine use has also been documented in Myanmar, Iran and North Korea. Germany, Japan, Norway, Canada and others have spent millions on efforts to clear landmines from affected countries, but in heavily contaminated places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Cambodia, civilians are still losing their lives and limbs, years after wars have ended.
Advocacy group Mines Action Canada describes landmines as 'indiscriminate weapons from the 1900s.'
'In this century, landmines are a weapon of choice for those like Russia and ISIS who want to terrorize civilians or a weapon of desperation for non-state actors with no other options,' executive director Erin Hunt said in a written statement. 'The moves by Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will put the citizens at increased risk of death or injury for decades to come because it is impossible to use an indiscriminate weapon responsibly.'
Mines Action Canada is a member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.
Widely considered a major diplomatic achievement for Canada, the Ottawa Treaty is officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.
While Axworthy would like to see renewed leadership from Ottawa, he says government support for landmine work has waned over the past decade.
'I've been told in the meetings I've been holding … that right now there's no particular interest,' Axworthy said. 'One senior diplomat told me that to be effective, it has to have a political champion, and I don't think there's anybody, right now.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
37 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, July 26: ‘It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation'
Re 'Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dismisses, demands apology for Jasper wildfire report' and 'Trump sues Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch for Epstein birthday letter coverage' (July 19): Two of three headlines on Page A3 feature democratically elected politicians complaining about or suing over reports which disagree with their particular narratives. Apparently the art of the deal and its followers do not abide any type of disagreement whatsoever. Interesting times. Vicki Nash-Moore Collingwood, Ont. Re 'A shrinking population is hardly what this country needs right now' (Opinion, July 19): Reducing immigration would not be walling ourselves off from the rest of humanity. I believe the root problem is declining birth rates, which is an affordability problem that should be fixed first. Using immigration to supplement declining population can create a never-ending cycle. New Canadians face the same economic issues such as access to homeownership, timely health care etc. Instead we should utilize a planned and selective approach to complement economic growth, fill gaps and ensure positive impacts for both existing and new Canadians. Joanne O'Hara Oakville, Ont. An ugly underlying aspect to the immigration discussion: It is clear to me that Pierre Poilievre's 'right people in the right numbers' is a Trump-like signal to his base for more white Christian immigrants and fewer refugees. We celebrate athletes such as Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, whose family comes from Antigua and Barbuda, and authors such as Esi Edugyan, whose parents are from Ghana. Yet both countries were threatened with a U.S. travel ban; not the right people in the view of the Trump administration. Most immigrants are not famous, nor are their children. The vast majority are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who love Canada because it was a refuge from hardship elsewhere. In that way, they are similar to those of us whose white forebears left Europe for better lives. It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation. David Steele Saskatoon Re 'Follow through' (Letters, July 19): Lurking behind a letter-writer's comments about housing refugees only after all Canadians have homes first – 'cold is just as deadly as bombs' – is a surprising rationale, and a troubling one for me in the extreme. We thankfully live in a war-free country. Almost everyone knows where they will rest their heads at night, comparatively speaking. I am not unaware of our own homeless populations, a great tragedy. But remedies are sought and often found because we care. For refugees, trying to survive in a world that seeks to destroy their homes, their lives and their hopes of surviving with peace and optimism is a hell on Earth. As human beings – and Canadians – we have always been our brother's and sister's keepers, no matter where they live. Indifference to their needs and survival would diminish us all. Surely compassion is borderless. Joan McNamee Kamloops My group sponsored Syrian Kurd refugee families that arrived in 2016. When a young couple arrived, joining those already there, I shed tears as I saw 12 family members greeting the newcomers, hugging and kissing. I cried to myself thinking of my grandparents, who arrived by ship before the First World War, one or two at a time. They all fled the Czarist Russian Empire and built lives for themselves and their families in Montreal. Earlier this summer, my 'Syrians' invited us to celebrate the arrival of a newly arrived bride with about 30 other at a picnic in the park. It included youngsters born in Toronto. Like my Jewish grandparents, they had been most vulnerable and are now settled Canadians. Today, Palestinian Gazans are the most susceptible group. Canada recognized that, but gave a cynical invitation. It's never too late to do better. Allan Fox O. Ont, Toronto Re 'The Giller Prize was a rare CanLit success story. Now it might become a casualty of a foreign war' (Opinion, July 19): Giller Prize executive director Elana Rabinovitch has worked tirelessly to promote Canadian literature, for which we should all be grateful. It is suggested that authors such as Omar El Akkad and Madeleine Thien have 'betrayed' Ms. Rabinovich. How so? They won the Giller in 2021 and 2016, respectively. They could not have predicted Israel's ramped-up war efforts after Oct. 7, 2023. I find it an absurd notion that Giller winners who speak out against Israel should return their prize money. A literary prize is not hush money. Anne Hansen Victoria I would like to ask all the Giller winners who have been boycotting the prize because of its association with Scotiabank: Why, if the bank's money is so tainted, they have not returned their own prize money? I would also like to know how they justify depriving other Canadian writers of the chance to earn the same large amount of money and get the same boost in sales? The war in Gaza is still going on, so I don't know what this boycott has achieved except to defund the Giller and make all future sponsors think twice about funding a literary prize. It's a complete shame. Goldie Morgentaler Professor emerita, department of English, University of Lethbridge It would indeed be sad if the Giller Prize were to end. But any award that is heavily associated with and financed by a single corporation or wealthy individual is by definition going to be fraught. If an artist who has benefitted from this prize later finds that the entity behind it has been involved in activities they find morally repulsive, must they muzzle themselves? Why? I think the real lesson is that important events benefitting the arts cannot be sustainably supported by the private sector. In light of how much benefit comes to Canada from artistic endeavours such as strong Canadian literature, I think this is a clear case where Canada should step up to the plate to support the continuation of the Giller. Paul Rasmussen Victoria Re 'I'm not offended when people praise my spoken English' (Opinion, July 19): I also believe in having 'a bit more faith in the better side of human nature' when it comes to clearing up potential cultural misunderstandings. That being said, context is everything. In 2018, Donald Trump's infamous and profane remarks on nations in the African continent provides background to his remarks on Liberian President Joseph Boakai's 'good English.' This was not an innocent remark; instead, it was offensive and disrespectful, as made clear in his previous comment on Africa and therefore Africans in general. Pointe finale. Veena Dwivedi St. Catharines, Ont. Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
CBC
38 minutes ago
- CBC
Trudeau radically overhauled the Senate — will Carney keep his reforms?
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau upended 150 years of Canadian parliamentary tradition when he dumped Liberal senators, named Independents to the upper house and generally stripped the place of partisan elements. The experiment produced mixed reviews, with some old-guard senators — those who were there well before Trudeau — arguing the Senate is now irrelevant, slower, less organized and more expensive. Some of Trudeau's appointees say the reforms have helped the Red Chamber turn the page on the near-death experience of the expenses scandal, which they maintain was fuelled by the worst partisan impulses. Defenders of the new regime say partisans are pining for a model that's best left in the dustbin of history. The Senate has been more active in amending government bills and those changes are not motivated by party politics or electoral fortunes — they're about the country's best interest, reformers say. As the debate rages internally over whether the last 10 years of change have been worth it, Prime Minister Mark Carney has said almost nothing about his vision for the upper house. Under the current model, would-be senators are recommended by an outside panel but the decision is still up to the prime minister. Most of Trudeau's early picks were strictly non-partisan but, as polls showed his party was headed for an almost certain defeat, he increasingly named Liberals to the chamber. Carney has already scrapped Trudeau's carbon tax, introduced legislation to bypass Trudeau-era regulations, repaired once-frosty relations with the provinces and taken a different approach to the trade war. All that has some senators wondering whether the non-partisan push in the Red Chamber will be the next domino to fall. In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, House leader Steve MacKinnon signalled there may indeed be more changes coming. "I think the Senate is very much a work in progress," he said. "We continue to work constructively with the Senate in its current configuration and as it may evolve. I know many senators, the various groups in the Senate and others continue to offer some constructive thoughts on that." Asked if Carney will appoint Liberals, MacKinnon said the prime minister will name senators who are "attuned to the vagaries of public opinion, attuned to the wishes of Canadians and attuned to the agenda of the government as is reflected in the election results." Carney is interested in senators who "are broadly understanding of what the government's trying to achieve," MacKinnon said. As to whether he's heard about efforts to revive a Senate Liberal caucus, MacKinnon said: "I haven't been part of any of those discussions." Alberta Sen. Paula Simons is a member of the Independent Senators Group, the largest in the chamber and one mostly composed of Trudeau appointees (she is one of them, appointed in 2018). Simons said she knows the Conservatives would scrap Trudeau's reforms at the first opportunity. What concerns her more are those Liberals who are also against the changes. "There's a fair bit of rumbling about standing up a Liberal caucus again. And I am unalterably opposed to that," she said. When the last Liberal caucus was disbanded, some of its members regrouped as the Progressive Senate Group, which now includes senators who were never Liberals. "To unscramble that omelette, whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative, I think would be a betrayal of everything that we've accomplished over the last decade," Simons said. "I think the Senate's reputation has improved greatly as a result of these changes. I think the way we are able to improve legislation has also increased tenfold. It would be foolish and wasteful to reverse that." Still, she said there's been pushback from some Trudeau appointees. Senate debates are now longer, committee hearings feature more witnesses and there's more amendments to legislation than ever before, she said. Not to mention Independent senators can't be whipped to vote a certain way. All of that makes the legislative process more difficult to navigate. "Partisan Liberals don't like the new independent Senate because they can't control it as easily," she said. Marc Gold, Trudeau's last government representative in the Senate who briefly served under Carney before retiring, said his advice to the new prime minister is to keep the Senate the way it is. "The evolution of the Senate to a less partisan, complementary institution is a good thing. I think it's a success, and I certainly hope that it continues," Gold said. On the other side of the divide, Quebec Sen. Leo Housakos, the leader of the Conservative Senate caucus, welcomes the idea of injecting some partisanship. He said, under the current model, the chamber is less influential. "The place has become, unfortunately, an echo chamber," he said. Housakos said the old Senate was more honest, when members were more transparent about their political leanings. Many of Trudeau's Independent appointees are Liberal-minded and their voting record suggests they often align with the government, Housakos said. "Look at how often they've held the government to account," he said. "Look how often they've asked the difficult questions in the moments when the government needed … their feet held to the fire." Simons sees things differently. "It's really difficult for people who've been brought up in a partisan milieu, whether they're Conservative or Liberal or New Democrat, to understand that it is actually possible to be a political actor without a team flag," she said. "It's not my job to stand for a political party." Saskatchewan Sen. Pamela Wallin is a member of the Canadian Senators Group, which is made up of non-partisan senators including some who, like her, formerly sat as Conservatives. She said the current process has produced some senators who are political neophytes, unfamiliar with the Senate's traditional role. "I don't care if somebody belongs to a political party.… I think people need to be better educated about what they're signing up for," she said. "Our job is to be an arbiter of legislation and laws put forward by the House of Commons. It's not a place where we can all ride our individual hobby horses." That's a reference to the proliferation of Senate public bills — legislation introduced by senators themselves. These bills often have no hope of passing through both chambers, while still taking time and resources to sort through. There is data to support Wallin's contention that there are more of these bills than there were before the Trudeau reforms. During Stephen Harper's last term, there were 56 Senate public bills introduced and nine of them were passed into law, according to a CBC News review of parliamentary data. By comparison, Trudeau's final session saw 92 bills introduced over a shorter time period. Only 12 of them passed — a worse success rate. In the first few weeks of this new Parliament, more than 32 such bills have already been introduced, some of them a revival of those that died on the order paper. Wallin said those bills often reflect senators' "personal interests or the interests that they've shared over a lifetime." She wants the Senate to take a "back to basics" approach. "Our job is sober second thought," she said. Wallin is also calling for better regional representation in the Senate, which may be a tricky proposition given the constitutional realities. A change in seat allocation would require cracking open that foundational document, a politically unpalatable idea. Still, Alberta separatists are agitating for change, calling the current breakdown grossly unfair. Housakos said depriving some parts of the country of meaningful representation needs to be addressed. In B.C., for example, the province's nearly six million people are represented by just six senators. P.E.I., by comparison, has four senators for about 180,000 people — an allocation formula that dates back to Confederation. "Western Canada has a legitimate beef. They are not fairly represented in the upper chamber," Housakos said. "It's probably the biggest problem that needs to be addressed." But the government isn't interested in that sort of change, MacKinnon said.
CBC
38 minutes ago
- CBC
Federal government to stop funding hotel rooms for asylum seekers, IRCC says
Asylum seekers staying in federally-funded hotels will soon have to check out as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) says that funding will end in September. A spokesperson for IRCC told CBC News via email that as of Thursday, the federal government was housing 485 asylum seekers in five hotels in Ontario and Quebec, noting it has spent approximately $1.1 billion on temporary hotel housing for asylum seekers since 2020. "This measure was never meant to be permanent, and IRCC is funded to continue hotel operations only until September 30, 2025," the email said. Ottawa has provided funding for asylum seekers to be housed in hotels across Canada since at least 2018. Federal officials have previously said this system was always meant to be a stop-gap measure to deal with historic surges in migration. Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that plans to revamp Canada's outdated asylum system have been cancelled, and proposed border laws will likely make it more challenging to claim asylum. IRCC says it will help those still in hotels find housing, but experts and advocates say that could be a tough task in cities with high demand and low supply. Municipal shelters are consistently full, according to Adaoma Patterson, director of community investments at United Way Greater Toronto. While some additional capacity has been added in the form of a dedicated shelter for asylum claimants in Peel, she says more needs to be done to avoid overloading an already-stressed shelter system. "I think municipalities are doing everything that they can. But shelters take a long time to build. So it's not something that can happen overnight," Patterson said. Affordable housing shortages also make it challenging for asylum seekers, who sometimes encounter problems finding landlords willing to rent to them, she said, adding that some could end up on the street or in unsafe living conditions due to overcrowding. "Anyone who is not in safe, stable housing, there's always a risk that their health is compromised. And then in extreme cases, you might see someone pass away," she said. Number of asylum seekers declining: IRCC Over 15,000 asylum claimants who were previously in hotels have now transitioned to independent living, IRCC said in its email to CBC News. The department says it will help the 485 people remaining in the hotels find longer term housing before the program ends on Sept. 30. It said it will support people on-site while they look for longer-term housing, and that it will continue "supporting provinces and municipalities in developing their own long-term housing strategies." "While asylum volumes remain high, they are nearly 40 per cent lower than last year," IRCC said. CBC News asked IRCC why volumes have declined but has yet to receive a response. WATCH | How the government scrapped plans to revamp the asylum system: How the government quietly scrapped a $68M asylum system revamp project 3 days ago A major project to secure and revamp Canada's asylum system was shut down last year — an 'unexpected' move for some in the government, CBC News has learned. Now, some critics fear the outcomes that were achieved may be more harmful than beneficial for people seeking protection in Canada. Last year, the federal government cancelled an IRCC project meant to revamp Canada's outdated asylum system. The $68-million project was intended to be a major reform after Canada began seeing surges of asylum seekers entering the country, putting pressure on an already struggling system that relied heavily on paper files. Meanwhile, the government's proposed Strong Borders Act contains controversial new measures, including changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would force asylum seekers entering the country to make their claims within a year. Where will money come from, economist asks Christopher Worswick, an economics professor at Carleton University who focuses on migration, questions whether the volume of asylum claims has really declined that much. "Or is this just an attempt to offload it onto the province," he asked. Worswick says housing asylum claimants is an international obligation — and an expensive one at that. He warned that while the decision to end hotel funding may be motivated by a desire to cut federal spending, it could result in passing on costs to provinces and municipalities that are also cash-strapped. With those budget challenges and municipal governments lacking the taxation powers that higher levels of government can use, Worswick wonders, "Where is the money going to come from?" WATCH | How a Vaughan church is helping house refugees and asylum seekers: How a Vaughan church is helping house more than 50 refugees and asylum seekers 2 years ago Minister Isaac Oppong has been one of the main organizers behind Miracle Arena Canada's ongoing effort to provide shelter for refugees and asylum seekers in the Greater Toronto Area. Since June, the church has provided resources like food and temporary housing on the church grounds for dozens of newcomers. Grassroots organizations stretched to limit Community organizations have previously stepped in to support asylum seekers who fell through the cracks in different levels of government support. But they say they're also feeling strain. In 2023, hundreds of asylum seekers slept on the streets in downtown Toronto amid a funding stalemate between the city and the federal government. Miracle Arena For All Nations, a church in Vaughan, Ont., was one of several community groups that stepped up to help. Minister Isaac Oppong says his congregation has fed and housed over 500 asylum seekers on the church grounds since June 2023. He says he's concerned that ending the hotel program without other solutions in place will again lead to people sleeping in the streets. "There's nowhere for them to go. There's no repurposed buildings or there's no other housing. We will go back to square one like 2023," he said. Oppong says his congregation supports asylum seekers on a volunteer basis and hasn't received any government funding. He says it's not financially sustainable for local groups like his to continue supporting the influx of people long-term.
