Statement by Canada - Cluster 3 to the Second Preparatory Committee of the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Specific Issue: Improving the effectiveness of the strengthened review process

Check against delivery

Geneva, Switzerland, July 30, 2024

Chair,

Canada would like to thank you for holding this important session, which builds upon the significant work done by the 2023 Working Group on further strengthening the review process of the Treaty. 

Over the years, Canada has repeatedly highlighted the ‘institutional deficit’ within the NPT framework and has long championed efforts to strengthen the NPT review process.

We have also advocated enhanced transparency and greater accountability on the part of all states – particularly the nuclear-weapon States – towards the full implementation of this treaty.

We have done this both independently and in collaboration with our partners in the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) and the Stockholm Initiative.

As a leading proponent of the 2023 Working Group, Canada was disappointed that a consensus outcome was not achieved.

However, we believe that the draft recommendations of the Chair are a strong basis on which we can build.

Unfortunately, however, we find ourselves seemingly unable to agree on common-sense solutions or a way forward.

Chair, we need to get back to basics.

According to Decision 1, the Review Process has one overarching goal: assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the Treaty are being realized.

Yes, we must ensure that the review process remains fit for purpose, but also avoid getting bogged down in process.

Yes, we need to ensure past commitments are upheld, but we should do so in a way that is forward looking.

One of the most invigorating aspects of the recent Working Group was the opportunity for genuine dialogue. We recognise that merely reiterating our positions in non-interactive sessions is not enough.

Canada’s positions are well-documented:

We staunchly advocate for dedicated time to discuss the implementation reports of nuclear-weapon States, the enforcement of time limits, reconsideration of review conference outcomes and measures of success, the formalisation of a Chairs’ Bureau, and fostering greater inclusivity.

In this regard, we reaffirm that the joint proposal presented by Brazil, Canada, Ireland, and the Philippines at the conclusion of the Working Group continues to offer a realistic and constructive way forward.

We also appreciate the EU and US working paper contributions on transparency and SRP this session.

Canada has consistently argued for the crucial role of transparency and reporting in strengthening the Treaty review process – not as an end in itself – but as a path to accountability and ultimate disarmament.

We proudly support the NPDI’s working paper and efforts to advance this priority through standardised reporting templates, detailed report analysis, and dialogue with the P5.

However, it is disheartening that only a handful of States Party have submitted reports in this Review Cycle.

We repeat our call for all states to report using the NPDI template, and for the nuclear-weapon States to address the reporting issues noted in paragraphs 13 through 15 of the NPDI working paper 32. 

Because, without reports, or when reports come so late in the process that review is impossible, what is the role of a Review Cycle?

Chair,

As we look back to last year’s PrepCom and to the conclusion of this one, we, of course, strongly support all efforts towards reaching consensus on substantive matters.

However, we also think a discussion is warranted on bringing procedural matters to a vote, when necessary.

Yes, this might set a precedent. But what if that precedent were in the service of actual progress?

The alternative is unthinkable: the precedent where a single dissenting state can override the majority's will and potentially wipe the record clean of all proceedings.

In closing, in this Review Cycle, it is essential that we prioritise the "review" aspect, and not become ensnared in a repetitive "cycle", perpetuating the same mistakes year after year.

Thank you.