In international law, Nuclear Weapons Free Zones are areas in which a group of states has by treaty prohibited the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territories, according to criteria set and recognized by the United Nations. Canada is not a part of any international Nuclear Weapon Free Zone treaty. Canada is a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,Shannon Selin, Canada as a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone: A Critical Analysis. Vol. no. 10;no. 10.;. (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament, 1988), p. 5. a treaty that has similar aims to those of NWFZs and even encourages the establishment of multinational NWFZs,Lacovsky, "Nuclear Weapons Free Zones", p. 1 but does not prohibit stationing of nuclear weapons and recognizes five nuclear-weapon states. However, certain areas within Canada have voluntarily designated themselves as Nuclear Free Zones (NFZs) or Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs). Generally, these nuclear weapons free zones and nuclear free zones are codified within Municipal and Provincial jurisdictions.

Within Canada, Nuclear Weapon Free Zones typically ban the transport, storage, and deployment of nuclear weapons within the zone. Nuclear Free Zones are similar to Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, but also ban civilian nuclear energy infrastructure. The history of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones is closely tied to that of the Canadian peace movement, and much of the support for proposed Nuclear Weapons Free Zones was in response to the stationing of American nuclear weapons on Canadian bases during the Cold War. The Liberal Government of Lester B. Pearson equipped Canadian forces to deliver nuclear weapons, though the warheads themselves were property of the United States and remained in the custody of American personnel.John Clearwater, Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1998), p. 17. All US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from Canadian bases by 1984.Clearwater, "Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal", p. 215.

Proposals to declare all of Canada as a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone have existed since the days of the Cold War and have been debated in the House of Commons, but have never passed into law. Nuclear Weapons Free Zones continue to be relevant in Canadian Politics in the post Cold War. US testing of nuclear-capable systems in the waters of British Columbia has stirred controversy, as the Parliament of British Columbia has voted to declare itself a NWFZ.F. H Knelman, "American Weapons Testing in Nanoose Bay (Canada): Hearings on Canadian Appropriation of Provincial Territory to Allow American Tests". in Peace Research 31, no. 4 (11, 1999): p. 1. Additionally, activists have proposed the creation of an Arctic Nuclear Free Zone, a proposal that has received increased attention due to the ongoing discourse around anthropogenic climate change.Ernie Regehr, "Cooperative Security and Denuclearizing the Arctic", Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 2, no. 1 (2019), p. 274.

Background Canada was a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a collective defense organization that obligated each member to defend the other in attacks by the Eastern Bloc.Erica Simpson, NATO and the Bomb: Canadian Defenders Confront Critics (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001), p. 3. As the nuclear arms race developed following the Soviet Union's acquisition of the Atomic bomb, Canadian political leaders felt that cooperation with the United States in the matter of the defence of North America was necessary, given the geographic position of Canada between the United States and the Soviet Union.Patricia McMahon, Essence of Indecision: Diefenbaker's Nuclear Policy, 1957-1963 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009) p. 11. Furthermore, it was considered likely that hypothetical nuclear strikes on targets in the US would affect Canadian population centers as well.Don Bates, Donald Briskin, Lisa Cotton, Maureen McDonald, Linda Panaro, and Alasdair Polson, "What Would Happen in a Nuclear War" in Canada and the Nuclear Arms Race, ed.  E. Regehr, S. Rosenblum, and M. Laurence (Havertown;Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Limited., Publishers, 1983), p. 177. Thus, the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), a joint Canada-US air headquarters, was established to coordinate the defense of North American airspace.Clearwater, "Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal", p. 25 The idea of allowing the United States to place nuclear weapons on Canadian military bases was a sensitive issue for successive Canadian governments, who were acutely aware of the negative public perception of atomic weapons.John Clearwater, U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Canada (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1999), p. 15.

In 1959, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's government decided to allow the US to deploy nuclear weapons on Canadian soil, though not without debate and hesitation.McMahon, "Essence of Indecision: Diefenbaker's Nuclear Policy, 1957-1963", p. 55. There had been considerable diplomatic tension between the Diefenbaker government and the United States over a perceived American reluctance to consult Canada about operational decisions and changes to the security environment that might affect Canada.Clearwater, "U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Canada", p. 21. They hoped that the formation of NORAD as a joint command would incentivize the US government to consult Canada on military decision-making. Equally, the question of whether or not Canada should procure nuclear arms for use by its forces was controversial in the late 1950s and early 1960s.Mark Andrew Eaton,  "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", Journal of Transatlantic Studies 15, no. 3 (2017), p. 208. Proponents of the plan in Parliament pointed out that several expensive military systems already purchased by the Diefenbaker government were primarily designed to deploy nuclear warheads,Mark Andrew Eaton,  "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", Journal of Transatlantic Studies 15, no. 3 (2017), p. 209. and that such weapons were essential to fulfill Canada's NATO commitments.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 215 Members of the emerging peace movement as well as Liberal Party politicians opposed the acquisition of nuclear weapons,Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 215. for reasons ranging from the infeasibility of Canada making more than a token contribution to the alliances nuclear forces, to concerns about a potential escalations in tensions with the Warsaw Pact.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 216. However, the increasingly tense security situation following the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 began to sway the Liberal Party and to some extent the opinion of the general public in favor of a Canadian acquisition of nuclear weapons.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 210.

In 1963, The newly elected Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson announced its intention to equip Canadian forces with atomic weapons, a move that surprised many supporters of the Liberal Party.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 211. The nuclear warheads were formerly owned by the United States and in many cases remained in the custody of American personnel on Canadian bases, to be turned over to Canadian forces in wartime. However, public opposition to nuclear weapons grew over the course of the 1960s, and with the election of Pierre Trudeau, the government took measures to begin denuclearizing the Canadian Forces.Simpson, "NATO and the Bomb", 3 This coincided with a decline in the importance of tactical nuclear weapons in favor of strategic nuclear weapons, and thus this decision was not entirely a political gesture.Simpson, "NATO and the Bomb", 60 Many of the systems procured by Canada were intended to counter nuclear-armed bombers and were unable to counter the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that the Soviet Union put into service.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 217 Nonetheless, W25 "Genie" air-to-air rockets remained in service until 1984.

To a large extent, the Anti-Nuclear movement took shape in the 1960s. Anti-nuclear protests were held in response to American nuclear-capable air defense missiles in the early 1960s and continued throughout the decade.John Clearwater, Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1998), 17, p. 82. University activist groups,Dmitry Anastakis, The Sixties: Passion, Politics, and Style, ed. Dimitry Anastakis. (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008), p. 18. Women's Rights organizations,Frances Early, "Canadian Women in the International Arena in the Sixties: Opposition to the Vietnam War", in The Sixties: Passion, Politics, and Style, ed. Dimitry Anastakis. (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008), p. 36. and religious groupsErnie Regehr and Simon Rosenbaum, "The Canadian Peace Movement", in Canada and the Nuclear Arms Race ed. E. Regehr, S. Rosenblum, and M. Laurence (Havertown; Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Limited., Publishers, 1983), p. 226. played a formative role in the movement. The push for Nuclear Weapons Free Zones in the Canadian context largely stems from nuclear-armed American forces on Canadian soil. As Canada did not own any nuclear weapons outright, much of Canadian anti-nuclear activism focused on eliminating their presence in Canada. Advocacy for nuclear-weapon-free zones during the Cold War found the most success on the municipal level,Robert Penner, "Can Canada Risk being Nuclear-Free?", The Globe and Mail, Dec 26, 1986. while the federal level met similar proposals with little interest.

Important Figures in Relations to Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs) in Canada

John Diefenbaker

John Diefenbaker of the Progressive Conservatives was prime minister from 1957 onwards during a time of great turmoil from the divisive public debate about the nuclear weapons that followed World War II into the Cold War.Eaton, "The Liberal and Conservative Internationalist Divide: Societal Responses to Canada's Transatlantic Nuclear Commitments", p. 208. Diefenbaker's approach to international affairs and relations stemmed from trying to balance political support, public popularity and fiscal prudence. Given the public and significant nature of nuclear weapons with world current events at the time, Diefenbaker would attempt to create defensive policies that aligned with the majority of the public yet while bolstering his party to continue his popularity given his landslide win of an election. Heightened by the Cuban Missile Crisis, Canadians at home were no longer locked in a debate as the side for pro-nuclear weapons was gradually gaining more traction and Diefenbaker's cabinet unity was deteriorating. Diefenbaker began his nuclear policy planning in April 1958 with the Cabinet Defense Committee (CDC) discussing various topics such as: Canada's role and relationship with NATO, proposed ballistic missile defense systems, nuclear stockpiles and more related topics.