Photos by Koozma J. Tarasoff.

This past October 2, Peace Brigades International-Canada joined with individuals and groups across the country in a day of action opposed to the Canadian government’s plan to award a $19 billion contract in 2022 for new fighter jets.

Twenty-three actions took place in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.

PBI-Canada was at Ottawa South MP David McGuinty’s office in the morning to ask him to reject the purchase of new fighter jets and then joined the gathering on Parliament Hill with the 30-foot long banner (in photo above).

For more on the reasoning for our opposition to the acquisition of new fighter jets, please see Five reasons to say no to spending $19 billion on warplanes.

While the price tag of the fighter jets is $19 billion, it would cost billions more.

In April 2012, the Auditor General of Canada stated that the $9 billion cost of buying 65 F-35 fighter jets was an “underestimate” given the “sustainment” cost of $16 billion over a 20-year period meant the truer price tag would be $25 billion.

Using the Auditor General’s figure of sustainment costs of an F-35 ($19 billion ÷ 65 fighter jets = $292.3 million), the truer cost of purchasing 88 fighter jets in 2022 could be closer to $44.7 billion (88 x $292.3 million = $25.7 billion + $19 billion purchase price).

Years ago, Petra Kelly wrote in Nonviolent Social Defense:

“We spend billions on weapons research and millions training our young people at military academies. Why not invest in peace studies and peace actions? We need training centers, public campaigns, and educational materials.”

And we are honoured that she then highlighted: “We need to support groups like Peace Brigades International that intervene nonviolently in situations of conflict. We need to work concretely to realize peace and nonviolence in our time.”

To support our call for a reprioritization of spending, you can sign this petition that calls on the federal government to choose people and peace, not weapons and war.

Photo: Maria Josefina Caal Xol

The Feminists for a Binding Treaty (F4BT) collective has been highlighting the need to address key issues pertaining to women’s rights and corporate abuses in the proposed United Nations Binding Treaty on transnational corporations and human rights.

Their core demands include mandatory gender impact assessments of business operations; gender sensitive justice and remedy mechanisms; and ensuring respect, protection, and an enabling environment for women human rights defenders (WHRDs).

A major report from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has stated: “There have been numerous examples of gender-based violence directed against environmental defenders and activists, who try to stop the destruction or degradation of their land, natural resources and communities.”

That report adds: “Violence against WEHRDs in the public and private sector is interlinked with and rooted in social, economic and political power relations, including gender discrimination, an unequal division of labour, and pre-existing levels of violence.”

And Global Witness has noted: “Over 1 in 10 defenders killed in 2019 were women. Women who act and speak out may also face gender-specific threats, including sexual violence. If other members of their household are defenders, they can become targeted too.”

The F4BT collective has called for meaningful due diligence and highlighted that the gender impacts of corporate abuse are still largely overlooked.

Their October 2019 analysis on the revised draft of the Treaty highlights that the preamble should: “recall the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders; connect the role of human rights defenders with a corresponding State duty to ensure enabling environments; elucidate the context for the elaboration of the Instrument, including the reality of continuing business-related human rights violations and abuses and the need for the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the development of a robust regulatory framework.”

The Canadian government has committed itself to pursuing a feminist foreign policy, but has been largely absent from the process for the Binding Treaty so far.

The next negotiating round on the Binding Treaty will take place October 26-30.

To send an email to the Prime Minister and Canada’s representatives at the United Nations before this next negotiating round, please click here.

Twitter photo by #1492LandBackLane.

Yesterday, CBC reporter Jorge Barrera tweeted: “The Ontario Provincial Police have now stationed a cruiser in front of 1492 Land Back Lane in Caledonia, Ont.”

Six Nations land defender Skyler Williams comments: “The threat to us and those that support us growing daily. 76 days of it. 60 days ago feels like yesterday when our people were shot at, tasered and beaten.”

One Dish One Mic further comments that police raid – on August 5 – took place “only two days before the key injunction court date on August 7th – as a way of making preparation for the court date impossible.”

It then asks: “Will the OPP attempt a second raid days before a crucial court date again?”

Toronto Star columnist Shree Paradkar has explained that crucial court date will be this coming Friday October 9.

Paradkar writes: “That’s the date of a court hearing when Skyler Williams, a Six Nations member, has to respond to a court injunction that named him as the sole defendant in the case brought by the developer. He was named based on his Facebook post that detailed police action on the land.”

And the Haldimand Press has further explained: “Williams said there are various court dates for groups of people who were arrested, starting on October 20. Meanwhile, the next court hearing on the injunctions, which are the court orders that specifically criminalize demonstrations on McKenzie Meadows and any blockades in the area, is set for October 9.”

The OPP also contacted Williams on September 29 informing him that there was a warrant for his arrest for disobeying a court injunction.

In her article Injunctions as a Tool of Colonialism, lawyer Kate Gunn writes: “It will be critical for courts to carefully consider how to ensure that injunctions are not reduced to a means to advance economic interests [in this case, a 1,000-unit housing development] over the protection of constitutional rights and the expression of Indigenous law [including the occupation of ancestral lands, a right that flows from title].”

The land being occupied by Six Nations land defenders is part of the Haldimand Tract that was granted in 1784 to the Six Nations of the Grand River who form the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council has not granted its consent for the construction of the housing development on these territories.

The Chiefs have also thanked the land defenders for “taking peaceful steps to protect and save the land for our future generations, who will have nowhere to live and prosper if the settler population continues to unlawfully encroach upon our lands.”

1492 Land Back Lane has set up this Legal Fund to assist with their legal costs. For the latest updates, see #1492LandBackLane on Twitter.

On October 1, the Toronto Star reported on the court challenge by eleven Indigenous Maya Q’eqchi’ women against the Toronto-based mining company HudBay Minerals Inc. for violence committed against them by company security and military personnel.

A Canadian judge has now ruled that documents “including ones detailing the company’s close relationships with the Guatemalan police and army” can be heard.

The article notes: “Numerous emails and spreadsheets show that Skye and CGN [the Guatemalan subsidiary of HudBay] funnelled close to $140,000 (U.S.) to the Guatemalan police and army by sending the money to three well-connected middlemen ‘in cash or direct transfers to personal bank accounts’…”

It additionally highlights: “One document records that ‘there are rumours’ of $157,895 being paid to the armed forces ‘for their work in the land evictions’ as The Intercept reported.”

The article also explains: “The 11 women argue that the companies paid and worked with the police and army even though the public security forces were notoriously corrupt and violated human rights.”

This historic case stems from incidents that occurred on January 17, 2007. Six years later, a first major step in this case being heard in Canada happened.

In February 2013, Canadian Lawyer magazine reported: “Just before an Ontario court was set to determine the issue, HudBay abandoned its legal argument that the lawsuit should not be heard in Canada.”

“The defence [for HudBay] had filed extensive legal briefs arguing that the lawsuit should be heard in Guatemala, not Canada, despite evidence indicating that Guatemala’s justice system is dysfunctional, making it impossible for the victims to get justice there.”

The company then argued “that its corporate head-office in Canada is not legally responsible for the abuse committed by its wholly-owned and controlled overseas subsidiary corporation.”

As noted in the Toronto Star article yesterday, the case continues before the courts.

Nevsun Resources Ltd.

In January 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in a case regarding Vancouver-based mining company Nevsun Resources Ltd. for alleged complicity in the forced slavery at the Bisha mine in Eritrea.

At that time, the CBC reported: “The Supreme Court justices are not weighing the merits of the case itself, only if a domestic court should hear it. The outcome could have broad implications for other Canadian companies with foreign operations.”

A year later, in February 2020, Canadian Lawyer magazine reported that the Court ruled “that corporations can be held liable in civil law for breaches of international law, and that the act of state doctrine [which precludes domestic courts from assessing the sovereign acts of a foreign government] is not a bar to the claim.”

Tahoe Resources

There is also the significant past example of the challenge against Vancouver-based Tahoe Resources relating to its operations in Guatemala. 

In January 2017, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed that a civil suit against Tahoe could be heard in Canada, concluding that there was a real risk that the Guatemalans would not get a fair trial in their own country.

The challenge involved an incident on April 27, 2013 in which private security forces employed by Tahoe Resources began shooting at land defenders opposed to the Escobal silver mine, located about 75 kilometres southeast of Guatemala City.

Joe Fiorante, a partner at Vancouver-based law firm of Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (CFM Lawyers), commented: “The case sets a very important precedent. It confirms that Canadian courts are the appropriate forum for human rights claims arising from the foreign activities of Canadian mining companies.”

In July 2019, Agence France-Presse reported: “A Canadian mining firm has apologized after reaching an agreement with demonstrators shot and wounded while protesting the company’s Guatemalan gold and silver mine, according to statements from both sides.”

Proposed legislation in Canada

And it should be noted that Member of Parliament Peter Julian has been advocating for more than ten years for legislation that would give people and groups from outside this country who have suffered from the actions of Canadian corporations the ability to take their case to the Federal Court of Canada.

Julian explains: “[It would] allow non-citizens to sue anyone for gross violations of basic human, environmental or labour rights when they are committed outside the country.”

His private member’s bill, C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), was defeated by the Liberals and Conservatives in this vote in June 2019.

Peace Brigades International

Peace Brigades International continues to follow the legal proceedings against both HudBay and Nevsun notably in relation to concerns that have been raised by PBI-Colombia accompanied human rights defenders about the impacts of the operations of Toronto-based Frontera Energy Corp. and Calgary-based Parex Resources Inc.

In the case of Frontera Energy, the previous United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had highlighted in his report to the Human Rights Council that the company had signed two agreements on November 16 and 19, 2018 with the Colombian Ministry of Defence totalling US$1.3 million to provide protection for the company and that on November 27, 2018, the army and police launched a massive operation in the community of San Luis de Palenque, Casanare and arrested eight activists who subsequently experienced 500 days in detention and ongoing criminal charges against them.

To sign our Urgent Action calling on the Canada Pension Plan to divest from BAE Systems and the manufacturing of warplanes, please click here.

Divestment from weapons manufacturers is an important strategy in challenging militarism and making space for peace.

The BBC now reports: “The UK was the world’s second-biggest arms exporter behind the United States over the past decade, government figures suggest.”

That article highlights: “Orders worth £11 billion were won in 2019, which the government said placed the UK ahead of Russia and France. Almost £100bn worth of contracts since 2010 included the sale of Typhoons to Saudi Arabia and missiles to Qatar.”

The Eurofighter Typhoon warplane is manufactured by BAE Systems.

In 2006, a £4.43 billion deal to sell 72 Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia was announced. Those fighter jets were delivered to them between 2009 and 2017.

In February of this year, an £11 billion deal was announced to sell another 48 Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia.

It should be remembered that Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has millions invested in this weapons manufacturer.

The Ottawa-based Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) has noted that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) had $9 million invested in BAE Systems in 2015 and $33 million in 2017/18. With respect to the $9 million figure, World Beyond War has noted: “this is an investment in the UK BAE, none in the US subsidiary.”

These figures also indicate that CPPIB investments in BAE increased after Saudi Arabia began its airstrikes against Yemen in March 2015.

A Canada Pension Plan Investment Board spokesperson has previously stated: “CPPIB’s objective is to seek a maximum rate of return without undue risk of loss. This singular goal means CPPIB does not screen out individual investments based on social, religious, economic or political criteria.”

But it’s that reasoning that allows the Canada Pension Plan to invest and profit from the devastation caused by these fighter jets.

Significantly, Channel 4 recently quoted a former Royal Saudi Air Force officer who said the RSAF would be unable to continue its ongoing air strikes against Yemen – that the New York Times has reported “have killed thousands of civilians and bombed well over 100 medical facilities” – without the Typhoon fighter jet.

The 2018-19 annual report of the Canada Pension Plan notes that 15.7 million Canadians contributed $51.2 billion to the plan.

Peace Brigades International-Canada calls on the Canada Pension Plan to divest from the war machine and instead focus on investments that support peace, renewable energy and green jobs, and a sustainable future for all.

To sign our Urgent Action calling on the Canada Pension Plan to divest from BAE Systems and the manufacturing of warplanes, please click here.