Bill C-6 (Historical)

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions

This enactment implements Canada’s commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In particular, it establishes prohibitions and offences for certain activities involving cluster munitions, explosive submunitions and explosive bomblets.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just for the record, this is pertaining to NDP‑6. We have pulled NDP-4 and NDP-5.

I will start again, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. This is talking about ensuring that Canada adheres to the conventions that are before us. Back in 2013, the NDP and the Liberals fought very hard to have section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation fixed. Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critic at the time, said, “[W]hen we sign international agreements, it's important that we live up to our signature. It's important that the legislation we adopt does not undermine the treaty we negotiated and signed on to and accepted.”

This amendment, NDP‑6, is the exact same amendment that Liberal Marc Garneau introduced to the foreign affairs committee in 2013, when they were considering the prohibition of cluster munitions act. Of course, Marc Garneau, as you know, served in Canada's armed forces. He was a strong opponent of section 11 in Canada's legislation, as was Bob Rae. In fact, all Liberals at the time, including Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Freeland, Mr. Dion and Mr. McKay, were strong opponents of section 11.

We've taken the exact same language here that the Liberals put forward then, and importantly, this is also the same language that you will find in Canada's legislation on landmines, which we can all agree sets an important precedent. I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should any Canadian ever order the use of or even transport cluster munitions.

This amendment would allow Canadians to participate in joint operations with non-party states.

Here's what Mr. Garneau said back in 2013.

We in the Liberal Party have stated that our preferred policy would be for Canada to insist that cluster bombs not be used at all in multinational operations that Canada is a participant in. But we accept the fact that the Canadian Forces may end up working with other countries that do use cluster munitions. In these cases, we believe the appropriate policy is to inform our allies that Canada will not participate in the use of cluster munitions, while simultaneously protecting our soldiers. We understand the need to protect our soldiers from legal prosecution for working with other countries.

The words “active assistance”, we believe, accomplish this...by making it clear that the Canadian Forces cannot knowingly or intentionally assist in the use of cluster munitions. But they are protected from prosecution should they unknowingly or unintentionally assist in the use of these munitions.

Further on, Mr. Garneau also said:

We don't want Canadians to use these cluster munitions, but we do want to protect them in combined operations with countries that may use them.

As New Democrats at this table here today, we believe that fixing this loophole in the act would finally make Canada's legislation consistent with the convention and with the opinions of over 100 other countries, including many of our NATO allies, as we've heard clearly from witnesses.

In 2013 and 2014, the Liberals argued strongly to fix section 11. Marc Garneau wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail that it needed to be fixed. Bob Rae gave strong speeches in the House against it, and at the third reading, in 2014, the Liberals voted against the unamended bill, then Bill C-6, with Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Marc Garneau, Stéphane Dion, John McKay and other Liberals all voting against this. The objections were over this exact clause.

This is the first opportunity in nine years to fix this legislation. As we heard from Ambassador Rae, he has not changed his position that this clause is wrong. Many Liberals, I think, would feel the same.

Every expert witness who testified to this wants to see this fixed—Earl Turcotte, who negotiated the treaty for Canada; Alex Neve; Farida Deif.

Cluster munitions are banned for a reason. The humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions are horrendous. Canadians should not use them.

Our committee can make this choice today and fix the problem that could have been fixed nine years ago.

Thank you.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before we move on to questions and comments, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 6, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Stephen Wallace, Secretary to the Governor General, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of November, 2014, at 4:30 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia Jaton

Deputy Secretary

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Message From the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate, informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Time Allocation Motion

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the third time and passed.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

I know this may be out of order, but I would like to take a couple of seconds to acknowledge my staff who are here today in the gallery. I would like to thank my constituency staff for the wonderful work they do in the constituency. MPs are very busy. We would not be able to do our jobs unless we had our constituency staff to help us out. That is across party lines in the House.

I have been waiting to speak to this important bill. Last night I was here until midnight, because of the scheduling, and I am here again this morning. It is an opportunity for me to voice my concerns on behalf of the constituents of Surrey North.

Unfortunately, over and over again throughout this session the government has been moving time allocation motions. It is basically shutting down the debate and prohibiting the opportunity for members of Parliament to represent their constituents and bring their views to Ottawa. That is what we on this side of the House, the NDP members, like to do. We like to bring the views of our constituents to the House so that they can be heard. Unfortunately, this is the 76th time that time allocation has been used.

Unfortunately, Conservatives do not believe in bringing forward the views of their constituents. Time after time, they do not speak to some of these bills. A number of Conservative members do not speak to these bills. Maybe they do not want to bring the views of their constituents into the House. I believe what we are brought here to do is to represent our constituents. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed to do that not only on this bill, but on many other bills that have been introduced in the House.

There have been 76 time allocation motions. The Conservatives have tried to ram through every bill that has come before us. Omnibus bills containing some 500 pages have been brought into the House and the Conservatives have put time allocation on them. It prevents not only NDP members but Conservative members as well from bringing forward the views of their constituents.

This bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is important. Cluster munitions are little explosives that are dropped and burst into thousands of mini bombs. They cause great damage, not only when they are dropped, but many years afterward as well. I have seen many times on TV where children are playing with these explosives and they get hurt. Some 98% of those injured by cluster munitions are civilians. People are not only injured during conflicts, but many years after as well. It is the civilians who are impacted the most when cluster munitions are used.

Canada participated in the Oslo process and worked with other countries to bring forth this convention. This was right after the signing of the treaty to ban land mines which took place in Ottawa. We had an opportunity to bring other countries together to show leadership on this very important issue of cluster munitions, where we could make a real impact around the world and ensure that these kinds of things are not used against civilians, children and women, to make sure that they are not hurt by these explosives. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has failed time after time.

There was a time when Canadians were viewed around the world as peacemakers. Canadians were viewed as people who would bring the world together. They would negotiate between different countries to bring them together for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have seen the deterioration of our reputation around the world.

There was a time when Canadians were proud to wear the Canadian flag pin on their lapels. Citizens of other countries would wear the Canadian flag on their backpacks when travelling around the world. We were viewed as a peaceful country that brought people together, instead of what we have seen from the Conservative government, which is divisive and forceful attitudes, and empty rhetoric.

We have always been viewed as people who have helped countries. We look at the work of CIDA that was done many years ago. We helped poor nations. We helped nations come together. That is where we had our influence. We were out there helping many nations around the world. We had influence. We brought countries together for peaceful purposes.

Unfortunately, under the Conservative government, we have seen the deterioration in the CIDA funding that we provide around the world. It is now tied to businesses. It is tied more to mining companies or oil companies rather than humanitarian causes for which it was originally intended. That helped us have influence around the world to bring those countries together.

What has happened over the years? We pulled out of Kyoto. We were supposed to be the leaders in bringing countries together to deal with climate change. I know the Conservatives do not like the term “climate change”. They rarely use it. This morning, the member for Halifax spoke about the environment, and that we should have a debate about the environment. She pointed out that Conservatives rarely use the term “climate change”. There is scientific research behind it, and people all around the world know about it, yet some of the members from the Conservative side do not even want to use the term. They deny there is such a thing as climate change. We had an opportunity to show leadership in that regard.

The damage to our reputation has been severe. The UN Security Council is very powerful. We have had a seat on it on a rotating basis every year since the UN Security Council was formed, but this year we lost that seat. We did not even run because we knew we would lose to some other country, and we did lose. We did not even ask to be on the Security Council. That is how much damage the Conservative government has done to our reputation around the world. The UN Security Council was a place where we played an important role with all the work we have done as parliamentarians and as Canadians to bring countries across the world together for peaceful purposes. Under the Conservative government, we have lost that seat. That is the record of the government over the last six to eight years, and it has been downhill ever since.

We had an opportunity with this bill, Bill C-6, to repair some of the damage done by the government. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed in this regard. Some of the experts are saying that the Conservatives' legislation to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world, that it undermines the very spirit of the convention it is supposed to implement. This is what the world is saying.

We had a great reputation as peacemakers and world leaders in bringing countries together, but now we have taken some steps backward. Not only did we not ratify the Kyoto agreement, but we also do not have a seat on the Security Council. Now the world is saying that we have an opportunity to be positive and show leadership around the world, and yet this particular legislation on cluster munitions is a step backward.

People around the world are saying that this will set a precedent for other countries to also undermine the regulation or banning of these explosive, deadly munitions that hurt people. Again, 98% of the injuries are to civilians.

Despite the strong opposition of a majority of participatory states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. That is a troublesome issue. That is a very troublesome article that Canada actually championed and negotiated to include in the convention.

Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problem lies in clause 11. We heard this last night, and I am saying it again this morning. I think it is important because clause 11 establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. We know what happens when there is a broad list of exceptions; it sort of guts the bill. I have used these words before with most of the legislation that the government presents, but we could drive a truck through this legislation which has been so gutted by these broad exceptions.

In its original form, this clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess and/or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention, and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

China, Russia and the U.S. are not signatories to the convention. This is where we could have used our influence around the world. We could have brought countries together to persuade the countries that have not signed on to the convention to eliminate and ban the use of cluster munitions. The 98% of the people who are hurt by these munitions are civilians. We could help these people around the world. This is where leadership comes in.

Time after time the Conservatives have failed not only on the international stage but also on the domestic stage to show leadership in the areas where Canadians want their government to show leadership.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported Canadians and international civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely with the government, in public and through direct dialogue, to encourage improvements to this legislation.

We were successful in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions at least by Canadian soldiers. There was a small give on the part of the Conservatives. However, other loopholes remain. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will be superficial at best.

Indeed, Bill C-6 may even be damaging, as I pointed out earlier, by establishing an international precedent for opting out and exceptions. Therein lies the problem. The Conservatives entered into the process on the Convention on Cluster Munitions and came back with a whole bunch of exemptions. Exemptions are basically loopholes that allow for cluster munitions to still be used.

We have seen this over and over. In order for Canada to be a leader on this around the world, we need to close these loopholes. We need to work with other nations, our NATO allies, our Norad allies, and the UN. We need to work with all these international organizations to bring the countries on board so we can look at banning these explosives that hurt civilians, including children, around the world. What do the Conservatives do? They basically leave huge loopholes in the bill and that will not help.

As it currently stands, Canada's legislation will be the weakest of all countries that have ratified this convention. Unfortunately, with the government's approach to international issues, where it could take a leadership role and had shown leadership many years ago, it has failed to live up to that leadership. Canadians expect the government to live up to that leadership. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have failed Canadians again. This was an opportunity for them to show that leadership and, again, they failed.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the third time and passed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this House and speak on Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

We debate a wide range of subjects in this House. They are all important, but some subjects are more serious than others and some have more implications than others. Some deal with policy that affects our lives, but once in a while an issue comes up that involves matters of life and death and invokes some of the most important considerations that a government and a deliberative body like this one can have. This is one such act.

This bill deals with the use of cluster munitions by states around the world. It is the position of the official opposition, the New Democrats, to oppose Bill C-6 in its current form on the grounds that it contradicts and undermines the very international treaty that it is supposed to implement. I would point out to Canadians watching that the New Democrats did what a good official opposition does; that is, we attempted to work with the government and, in a good faith attempt, to amend the bill at committee. However, the Conservatives only allowed one small change. As we will see later on, it is not a change that is sufficient to render an inherently flawed bill acceptable to us.

This Conservative legislation purports to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I will say that it is widely recognized as the weakest attempt to do so in the world. It undermines the very spirit of the treaty it is supposed to implement.

The NDP will continue to push the government to further amend Bill C-6 to try to ensure that Canada's humanitarian reputation is not tarnished further by this weak legislation.

I will give a bit of background to detail exactly what we are talking about.

Cluster munitions are a weapon, an armament, that can release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. They have a devastating effect on the people in the area, mainly civilians. I will say right now that 98% of the casualties of cluster bombs around the world are innocent civilians.

These munitions often do not explode on impact and therefore can last many years after a conflict has ended. We have heard some testimony by members on all sides of the House that this is still a problem for countries such as Laos, where these weapons were dropped during the Vietnam war; some thousands of these munitions, unexploded ordnance, that are still in that country risk going off and harming and killing innocent men, women, and children today.

Canada participated actively in what was known as the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the success of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. These are important international initiatives that attempt to get worldwide consensus on an agreement to refuse to use certain weapons that are of particularly egregious effect. The U.S., China, and Russia did not participate in the process, and they continue to have stockpiles of cluster munitions to this day.

Despite strong opposition from the majority of states participating in the Oslo process and from many non-governmental organizations that have an interest in peace and in moving forward to a more civilized world, Canada succeeded in negotiating an article into the final text of the convention that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. That is article 21 of the treaty. In other words, Canada worked to allow and facilitate the continued use of cluster munitions by states that refused to participate in the process or sign the treaty, but limited that to the concept of interoperability, which essentially meant that a nation's military that was working in conjunction with an ally would not necessarily face criminal sanction under the treaty if its ally happened to use cluster munitions.

It was surprising and unacceptable to many countries in the world to see Canada urge the exception that would continue to allow the use of these devastatingly horrific weapons. The Minister of Foreign Affairs used the word “horrific” to describe these weapons, and properly so.

These weapons are often the size of batteries or small tennis balls, and they come, as the name would suggest, in clusters. When a cluster of these munitions explodes, many of these things are spread. Where they end up cannot be controlled. Often they exist for years unexploded until someone accidentally trips them, and then an innocent person is hurt.

After Canada, some years ago, negotiated that treaty, even with the narrow exception, the government then, as it was committed to do under that treaty, drafted the legislation that is before us in this chamber that is supposed to implement its obligations under the Oslo Treaty.

Bill C-6 now comes before us. When it came before us in its original draft form, inexplicably and completely unacceptably, the bill contained a number of widened exceptions that would continue to allow and facilitate the use of cluster munitions, directly contrary to the spirit and intent of the treaty Canada signed.

In its original form that the government drafted, it put in a clause, clause 11 of the bill, that would permit Canadian soldiers to use cluster munitions, to acquire cluster munitions, to possess cluster munitions, and to transport cluster munitions whenever they were acting in conjunction with another country that was not a member of the convention. It would also allow Canadian military personnel to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. That is shocking.

After sitting in an international arena to negotiate the end of the use of these munitions, and even though Canada, incorrectly, I think, advocated at that treaty table that there be a limited exception, the interoperability concept, the legislation the Conservatives drafted and brought before the House widened those exceptions, which effectively gutted the intent of the bill.

At the foreign affairs committee, New Democrats, led by our foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre, supported by Canadian and international civil society groups, pushed for changes to the bill. We engaged closely with the government in public and through direct dialogue to encourage improvements to this legislation, and we were successful to a limited extent. We were successful in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

The bill comes before us with that one improvement, but it would still permit Canadian soldiers and military to request the use of cluster munitions by another country, to acquire cluster munitions, to possess cluster munitions, and to transport cluster munitions when they are acting in concert with another country.

Unfortunately, these loopholes are rightly attracting the criticism not only of Canadians but of the world. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will be superficial at best. Indeed, many suggest that Bill C-6 would even damage the convention as a whole by establishing an international precedent for opt-outs and exemptions.

As it currently stands, Canada's legislation has been called the weakest of all countries in the world to have ratified this convention, and that is no small feat, because 113 countries have signed the convention and 84 have ratified it, and of those countries, Canada has the weakest legislation.

I am going to ask the indulgence of my colleagues for a minute. In six years, almost, in the House, I have yet to mention a very special person in my life, and that is my mother, Renee Marlene Davies. She is a very lovely and talented woman. She is hard working. She is loyal. She is a fantastic mother. I mention her because this debate made me think of her for two reasons. First, she was born on December 7, 1941. That is the day the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. It was a surprise attack. It was unprovoked. It shocked the United States. In fact, it shocked the world. That war was ended in the Japanese theatre some four years later by the dropping of two horrific weapons of mass destruction, atomic bombs.

The issues of the eradication and control of nuclear weapons continue to this day, and the government has continued that process. I understand that the government has completely boycotted and sanctioned Iran. It has closed our embassy even because of its view that Iran's development of nuclear processes threaten international security. I think that, not quite to the same degree but similar in kind, so do cluster bombs.

Cluster bombs threaten international peace and security in a different way, perhaps not in such a dramatic profound way, but when we have thousands of people around the world killed by cluster bombs, people who have nothing to do with the conflict, that is mass killing of innocent people and is something that should shock the conscience of all right-thinking people.

The second reason article 11 made me think of my mother is because she would never countenance me using dangerous or illegal products, or allow me to hold a product for a friend of mine, transport it for a friend of mine, or to request a friend of mine to use it, which is what this is. None of us would permit, as a logical exercise, a state of affairs where we would say that something is so dangerous and horrific that we will not use it, but we will certainly hold it, transport it or ask someone else to use it if they really want to. That is aiding and abetting.

I know the Prime Minister and the government have often stated that they want Canada's foreign policy to be one of principle. They want our foreign policy to be one that is not subject to the vagaries of relative arguments or of relative shifting of values or morals. They want to take the right position, and it does not matter what other countries think.

Why is that perspective absent here? Why does the government not say that it will not compromise its strict and absolute commitment to the eradication of a weapon that has no place in a civilized world? These weapons have no place in modern warfare at all, and the government should say that it will not consider views otherwise from anybody, friend or foe alike.

Why have the Conservatives gotten relative here? Is it because they will not use it, but their friends use it, they cannot really stop them, so they will just have to get along with that? This is contrary to the principled assertion the government claims to follow.

The government's approach to the Cluster Munitions Convention fits into a broader pattern of weakness on arms control, and I do not think that affects just our government, but it affects many countries in the world. The government has refused to join all of our NATO allies in signing the UN Arms Trade Treaty and it has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

The New Democrats, for our part, fully supported the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We fully believe that Canada should take a leadership role on the world stage and say that under no circumstances should these weapons be used and we will not be part of it in any fashion whatsoever. We will not have our military work with another military that uses them, end of story. That is a principled approach to the use of what has been described as horrific weapons of war, which do not kill soldiers, they kill civilians.

The bill would undermine the convention rather than implement it. Therefore, we are opposed to the bill as presented. We will continue to urge the government to make the kind of changes that I would like to think the Conservatives want to make.

I have heard members opposite talk about their commitment to ending the use of these weapons. They have described, in very accurate detail, the devastating impact of these weapons. They know that these weapons have no place in the modern world and should not be used by any country of good conscience. However, we know that Israel, the United States, China and Russia use them.

There are validators of our position, such as Earl Turcotte, the former senior coordinator for Mine Action at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate this convention. He also negotiated the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, also known as the Ottawa convention. Mr. Turcotte resigned as a result of Canada attempting to implement this weak legislation.

Mr. Turcotte is active in advocating for stronger legislation. This is coming from someone who I think has the most credibility of anybody, perhaps, in the country on this subject. He said:

...the proposed...legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention [on cluster munitions] to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, said this:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world [not the worst]. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said this:

It is a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

I will pause there for a moment. Canadians have always been proud of Canada's historic position on the world stage, where we have been respected by countries around the world as a country of balance, a country of moderation, a country of peacemaking, a country of peacekeeping, a country that is respected around the world as an honest broker. Yet we have people no less than former prime ministers of other Commonwealth countries like Australia saying that our approach now is timid, inadequate, and regressive.

I would venture to say that the Canadians I talk to, and I would dare say the majority of Canadians, want to see Canadian reassert our historic role on the world stage where we are respected for our fairness, where we are admired for our ability to bring peace, good sense, and responsibility to situations of conflict. We are a middle power, and that is a position on the world stage that we have historically occupied.

Instead, under the government, we are turning into a country that is associated with aggression, violence, and lack of international commitment—for example, the government withdrawing from Kyoto, the only international treaty on climate change. Our lack of standing in this world is demonstrated by a number of objective facts. For the first time in history, Canada did not get our turn at the UN Security Council and in fact had to withdraw our application because we knew Canada would suffer an embarrassing defeat by the United Nations, the other nations of the world.

As I have already said, 98% of all cluster munitions casualties have been civilians. One cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and typically scatters them over an area the size two to four football fields. Up to 37 countries and territories have been affected by cluster munitions use in armed conflict, 19 countries have used cluster munitions in combat, and 34 countries have at one point produced the weapons. Half of those have since ended production, some as a result of the convention.

While Canada has never used or produced cluster munitions, and I think that is a testament to our international position that I just described, the global stockpile of cluster bombs totals approximately four billion, with a quarter of those in U.S. hands.

I would end by saying that I would urge the government to work with its closest allies, United States and Israel, and use our influence to urge them to sign this treaty and urge them not to use these weapons, so that Canadians can once again reassert our respected, peaceful, and responsible position on the world stage, as Canadians want.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is one of the more interesting debates that we have had in this House in a while. I do not doubt the sincerity of the government side in what they are saying, in spite of the heckling that goes on from time to time.

However, the fact remains, that as the official opposition, people bring concerns to us they may not want to share with any particular government. The concerns that we have raised from the various stakeholders and people of interest out there bring us to a place where we are in conflict with the view of the government side.

We believe that Bill C-6, in its current form, would contradict or, worse, undermine the international treaty it is supposed to implement.

During the committee review of the bill, NDP committee members attempted to amend the bill, but the Conservative members only allowed one very small change. I have to say that those amendments we put forward were in response to some experts and other folks who had brought their concerns to us.

Sadly, Bill C-6 is seen, internationally, as the weakest and worst legislation on this matter in the world. That is not the NDP saying that. That is other people who have come to us with that. In fact, it is broadly believed it would undermine the very spirit of the treaty it is supposed to implement.

I am not saying that is something deliberate on the part of the government. We are saying that, for whatever reason, it has reached the point with this bill where it needs more work. We are prepared to do that, in spite of the fact that the NDP has worked successfully alongside Canadian and international civil society groups to try to persuade the government to totally prohibit the use of munitions by Canadian soldiers in any manner. I understand that there was testimony from military folks asking for this to happen, but we are saying, as legislators, we have a responsibility to respond, perhaps in a different way.

Sadly, we believe that there are many dangerous and unnecessary loopholes in the bill, and I will get to those a little further on.

We hope that the government will understand from this debate tonight that it is important to further amend Bill C-6 to ensure Canada's humanitarian reputation is not tarnished by this piece of weak legislation.

We have heard people in here talk about the damage done because cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a very large area, in a short period of time. Again, speaker after speaker has spoken about the impact of the devastation on civilians, in particular, that lasts many years after the conflict. We are all aware of that, and so is the government side.

Think for a moment back. For many decades following the Second World War, countries were clearing bombs, primitive by today's standards, of course, and from time to time some would explode. Many people, particularly, in the early 1950s, were injured and some killed by them.

To its credit, Canada, in another time, participated actively in what was known as the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban these cluster munitions. That process came on the heels of the success of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines.

Sadly, as we have heard in this debate today, the U.S., China, and Russia chose not to participate in that process and, again, they continue to stockpile these munitions to this day.

Very concerning to the NDP is the fact that, over the very serious concern expressed by a majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, the Canadian government succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention article 21, which explicitly allows for the continued military interoperability with non-party states, people who are not signatories to the agreement.

The NDP has very serious concerns because Bill C-6 would even go beyond the interoperability allowance of article 21.

I would offer that the main problem with the bill lies, in fact, with clause 11, which would establish an extremely broad list of exceptions.

Sadly, in its original form, this clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, and/or transport cluster munitions whenever they were acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention, and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

To my mind, that is using other countries as a blind to hide behind, to allow our forces to use these munitions, when Canadians clearly do not want them under any circumstances.

At the foreign affairs committee, in response, the NDP worked closely with the government, not only in public session but also through direct dialogue, to work to try to improve Bill C-6 before it became law.

I am pleased to say we were successful at committee in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. The member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills made that point during the debate here tonight. I was pleased to see that. He is an individual with great experience in our military, and it is worthy to take his advice.

Having said this, other serious loopholes remain, and as a result, the NDP believes that without further amendments to fix these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will appear at best to be superficial.

I would suggest that, even worse, Bill C-6 may well damage this convention, as it may lead to other international precedents or one that other nations would use to justify themselves opting out or seeking further exemptions.

Let us imagine, as a result of Bill C-6's exemptions, that Canada's legislation could be viewed as the weakest and the worst of all countries that have ratified the convention to date.

Overall, I would suggest the government's approach to the cluster munitions convention further demonstrates an overall pattern of weakness on arms control. I am sure that will be debated, but that is the view from this side.

We often hear the government side in the House touting NATO, but now the Conservatives have refused to join all of our NATO allies in signing the UN arms trade treaty, except the United States, and worse, loosening restrictions on arms exports. That puts us in a very questionable position on the world stage.

I want to be clear. New Democrats fully support the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. However, this bill would undermine the convention, rather than just implementing it.

We oppose the bill as presented at committee stage. Again I repeat, we worked hard, and that is everybody's job in this place, as I see it, to try to make legislation better. We have civil society groups, and I know there are some, not all, on the government who frown on civil society groups, but I know from experience that those are groups of people who work hard to keep all of us accountable in this place.

Although the one amendment the Conservatives allowed is an improvement, it certainly is insufficient for the NDP to come to a point where we could support this bill.

At this point, the NDP believes the best option would be to remove the problematic clause 11, so the NDP is proposing to delete this section from the bill before it passes report stage.

There are some statistics and facts around this: 113 countries signed the convention and 84 have ratified it. We signed it on December 3, 2008. It was tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 2012. That was a significant gap in time.

A very striking statistic I think we all should consider is that 98% of the victims of the use of cluster munitions are civilians. Let us think about that for a moment. I understand that the people here are not cold-hearted. I understand there is some belief in the necessity of having weapons of this nature or at least in working side by side with countries that have them.

However, I would ask the members on the government side to consider for a moment that 98% of the victims are civilians. How many are women and children and non-combatants?

With that, I will end my comments.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

She seems to have misunderstood the NDP position. The clear amendment that we proposed in committee was not about striking clause 11 from Bill C-6; it was about replacing it with article 21 of the convention. That is clear.

We do not want to remove our soldiers' legal coverage. We just want to replace it with the same clause that Canada wanted to add to the convention. My colleague is misleading the whole House when she says that the NDP wants to remove legal coverage. The truth is that we want to strengthen it.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and esteemed colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I know that my colleagues are tired, but before I begin my speech I would like to ask them not to shout and interrupt me and instead listen to what I have to say. They can ask me questions afterward.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, which is extremely important. How can we ratify a convention if we change it by adding amendments that will lead to a multitude of loopholes? It is like a contract. When we sign a contract, we are bound by it. The contract becomes null and void if we include a clause whereby it applies to us only if we decide it does. The same principle applies to a convention.

Why sign a convention if, in any event, we are going to pass a bill in the Parliament of Canada saying that the convention only applies when we say it does? The government is essentially trying to tell us that it considers the convention to be null and void. It is trying to shirk its responsibilities by passing a bill that cancels all the provisions of the convention.

It is important to repeat that Canada's former chief negotiator, Earl Turcotte, resigned because Canada's position on this was too weak. This gives us a taste of this government's approach to negotiating treaties. I would like to quote Earl Turcotte:

He said:

As Head of Delegation, I made all statements for the Canada during plenary negotiations. I know what I said on behalf of our country, with political and official-level support at that time. I also know how it was understood and ultimately agreed by all 108 negotiating states...

Bill C-6 constitutes a reversal of many of the key commitments Canada made during negotiations and by signing the convention in 2008 and is an affront to other states that negotiated in good faith.

According to the country's former chief negotiator, Canada is breaking the promises it made to the states that negotiated the convention. This is proof that the Conservative government negotiates in bad faith both here and abroad. Mr. Turcotte was a leader on treaties about this kind of weapon. He also negotiated the landmine treaty. The man's credibility is solid.

When Bill C-6 was debated in June 2013 as Bill S-10, Canada was in the process of sabotaging the UN Human Rights Committee's negotiations on sexual violence in conflict zones. The government refused to adopt a motion or make amendments to a motion about sexual violence against women and children in conflict zones. Why? Believe it or not, it was just because the negotiations and the discussions included a section about abortion, reproductive choices and women who are victims of rape.

Clearly the Conservatives have gotten stuck in an ideological rut since becoming a majority government. Their ideologies are right-wing. Whether we are talking about weapons, sexual violence, or the arms trade, Canada opposes those principles. This is about saving lives, not about—

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-6. Several of my colleagues have already spoken about it. Although we essentially agree with the agreement that was signed, we can no longer support Bill C-6 because of the additions that the government made.

Over the course of our careers, we have heard a lot of talk about land mines and we have been made aware of that issue. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the images that we see on television and the stories that are told about people who have been affected by these weapons and children who have been maimed by this type of explosive years after the conflict has ended in many countries. Even today, even after the wars have ended, this problem still remains. That is very unfortunate, and we should take a lesson from that.

People are always saying that we need to remember history and that we need to talk about it in order to prevent those sorts of things from happening again.

The effects of the cluster munitions that we are talking about today are just as devastating as those of the land mines we are all so familiar with. It is important to point out that 10% to 40% of these submunitions do not explode immediately. They remain in the ground for many years.

This reminds me of a file I worked on. A veteran came to see me. He talked about the explosion that happened at Valcartier 40 years ago. By the way, there will be special memorial ceremony this summer to mark the 40th anniversary of that incident.

Some young cadets were transporting grenades, and one of those grenades was live. Some of these young people died, while others lived but still carry emotional and physical scars 40 years later.

This man, who was in charge of the cadets, was still crying as he talked to me about it.

When I hear talk about land mines or cluster munitions, as a mother, a grandmother and a person who sees the destruction caused by war and the use of these weapons, I think that we should learn a lesson from this and that we should immediately stop doing this type of thing. We have the opportunity to do so today. We have the opportunity, as leaders, to refuse to say that we have no choice because the countries that we work with did not sign the agreement and have the right to use them. Yes, we have a choice. Instead, we should be working to dissuade those countries from using them.

I would like to give an example. Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Why would we pass watered-down legislation? Why would we not take this opportunity to show the world that we can take a leadership role, using the examples I mentioned earlier, to demonstrate that this should not be happening? We need to stop it. It is our duty.

We also know that 98% of injuries caused by cluster munitions are inflicted on civilians. Civilians who give of their time to work on destroying these mines are injured.

As I said, we just need to think about the examples that my colleague gave earlier, the stories we see on television and what we hear from people who have been affected.

It is clear to us that these weapons need to be banned. We need to show some leadership.

We have stood by Canadian and foreign civilian organizations that are calling for this bill to be amended.

I am very disappointed that the government rejected the amendment we proposed last Tuesday to clause 11 of the bill. It was very important.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre spoke about it in the speech he gave earlier today. The amendment was designed to prohibit Canadians soldiers from being directly involved in the use of cluster munitions. The government wants to allow them to be indirectly involved in their use. That comes back to what I was saying earlier, that Canada would be following in the footsteps of countries that have not signed the convention. That is unacceptable.

We need to demonstrate once again that Canada is a country that can show leadership. Canada may never have experienced a civil war, but we are familiar with the consequences. Immigrants and new Canadians have lived through war and share those experiences with us. We never want to go down that road.

We want to maintain our soldiers' ability to work with other countries. However, we need to be sure that the Canadian Forces will never use cluster munitions.

Earlier, I spoke about one stakeholder in particular, and I would like to mention a few others who have similar concerns about this bill. Many experts share our view. I would like to share a few examples that some members have already mentioned. It is important to repeat them.

Earl Turcotte, the former senior coordinator for mine action, who was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, said:

In my view, the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

When you sign a convention, you have a duty to comply with it and not find roundabout ways to avoid fulfilling the obligations you committed to in that convention. That is what is going on here. That is what this government is doing, which is truly unfortunate for Canadians. It is also truly unfortunate for the leadership of our country and for Canada's image on the world stage. We must reject this; it is not too late.

The government should understand the consequences of what it is doing. We disagree with the bill because it does not honour the commitment that we made. This government has the means and the time to fix that. We must not accept the proposed changes, and we must move forward to protect our soldiers and the families, children and civilians who would be affected by this bill.

Mr. Turcotte is also concerned about the diplomatic consequences this flawed bill could have. He said that Bill C-6 constituted an about-face on several key commitments Canada made during the negotiations and when it signed the convention in 2008 and that the bill is an affront to the other states who negotiated in good faith.

Mr. Turcotte even resigned his position after 30 years of service at that organization. He could not accept that Canada would impose such a weak implementing legislation. That is what we must condemn.

We have experts, so why not listen to them? Why not pass the best bill possible?

Since my time us up, I will now take questions from my colleagues.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. His remarks were moving because he shared with us his personal experience of what he went through during his travels to Afghanistan for the implementation of a landmine treaty.

Another troubling thing that affected my colleague was how slowly the government moved and the long and roundabout way it took to introduce legislation, when Canada participated in the negotiations of the present convention on the use of cluster munitions several years ago, in 2008, in fact.

I would like him to talk about the government's foot-dragging, not to say its near-total inaction with regard to Bill C-6. That does not even include its undue delays after introducing the bill and with regard to the treaty banning the use of landmines, when Canada had signed the convention, in addition to ratifying it, on December 3, 1997. That was a very strong and very clear act of leadership.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by letting members know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.

Despite the late hour, I will try to do justice to what I think is a very important topic before us this evening, Bill C-6.

I have to say that it is strange to be starting a speech in the dark of the night on something that could have been before us, and should have been before us, much sooner. This convention was agreed to in Dublin in May of 2008. It was signed in Canada on December 3, 2008. It actually entered into force in 2010, when I think 30 nations had ratified it. However, the first version of this bill was only tabled in the House of Commons in December 2012, which was 18 months ago.

We are now debating the bill under time allocation, suddenly, and I am not sure which time allocation it is, as there have been several since then. However, we are now up to about 75 time allocations. Again, it is a strange sense of priorities from the government.

What we have in front of us is a bill to implement an international treaty. The bill, now at third reading, is still very much in the same form as when it first came to the House. There has been only one small amendment, but I agree that it was an important amendment. Unfortunately, what we still have before us is a bill that contradicts and undermines the very international treaty it is supposed to implement.

Our official opposition foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre, has tried very diligently to work with the government on this implementation legislation, all the way back to its original iteration as a Senate bill. He has been trying to make sure that it actually matches the treaty that we signed.

The member had a very practical suggestion, which was to take article 21 from the convention, the clause dealing with interoperability with non-party states, and get agreement to substitute it for clause 11 in the bill before us. It is clause 11, for me, that is the main problem with this legislation. However, it is less of a problem after the amendment than it was previously, because before that amendment there was a very serious problem.

The initial problem with clause 11 was that it would have allowed Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions in some circumstances. Therefore, I am thankful for the amendment, which the government agreed to, to remove that explicit permission for the use of cluster munitions. It is an important change. However, I have to say that when we think about the treaty we signed, it is hard to imagine how that ever got into the original draft of an implementation bill, because it was so clearly contradictory of the intent of the convention.

Still, even after the small amendment that took out “use”, the bill, under clause 11, would still allow Canadians to participate in and even command operations using cluster munitions as part of joint operations. To my mind, and I think to most observers, this clause still undermines the treaty, the purpose of which was to ban the use of cluster munitions.

Of course, New Democrats are not the only ones raising these concerns. They have been raised by international civil society groups, by Canadian civil society groups, and perhaps most tellingly, by the Canadian who negotiated the treaty on our behalf. The head of the Canadian delegation negotiating this convention, Earl Turcotte, resigned from DFAIT and has subsequently called the proposed legislation “...the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions”.

Most interesting to me is to remember the role of Canada at these negotiations. This role was in great contrast to our previous traditional leadership role when it came to negotiating weapons treaties. In this case, Canada's role was to try and get article 21 added to the treaty. This is the article that provides for interoperability with non-party states. Since Canada succeeded in getting that added to the convention, it is hard for me to imagine why the government finds itself in a position of creating even larger loopholes through clause 11 in the bill. Let us remember that 113 countries have signed the convention and 84 have ratified it.

Why is clause 11 there? I believe it has come out of an inordinate concern about interoperability with the United States and subsequently from a parallel concern about the protection of Canadian Forces members from liability when participating in joint operations that use cluster munitions.

There would be two ways to solve this problem. The way the government has decided to do it is to create a loophole that would let Canada out of its legal responsibilities. The other way would have been to conduct negotiations with the United States about joint operations to make sure that Canadians did not place themselves in a situation in which they would be in violation of the convention.

If we entered those negotiations, we would actually advance the goals of the convention and help try to bring the United States, or any other country that is not a signatory, under the convention. Instead, as I said, the government has chosen to create a larger loophole.

There is a list of 84 countries that have ratified this convention without seeing the need for loopholes like those in clause 11. This includes NATO countries like Spain, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy. It includes traditional allies of Canada like Australia and New Zealand. It includes countries like Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland.

As members on the other side have pointed out, some of these countries do have interoperability clauses in their own legislation. However, those clauses are consistent with article 21 of the treaty, and that means that their interoperability clauses allow participation in joint operations only when that participation does not involve assistance with acts explicitly prohibited by the convention.

What kind of weapons are we talking about here? These are weapons that can be delivered by a variety of means, by aircraft, artillery, or rockets, but what is most pernicious about them is that they release hundreds of small explosives over a very broad area. These devices individually are often as small as a battery. They are devices with a very high failure rate, up to 30%, which leaves a large unexploded ordnance problem behind. We know that 98% of the recorded casualties from cluster munitions have been civilians. This makes cluster munitions most similar in their impact to the problems left behind by land mines.

Land mines are phenomena that I had occasion to become personally familiar with some time ago. When I went to Afghanistan in 2002 as a human rights investigator, I was required to complete a high-risk personal security training course conducted by the British military. At that time, I learned how to recognize land mines and how to extricate myself from a minefield.

That was all theory until I actually arrived in Afghanistan. What struck me most was the very large number of people on the streets each day missing a limb, most of them children. Almost every day that I was there, we ran across more examples of civilians losing limbs as a result of those land mines.

Land mines later became a more personal reality for me when I was travelling across the country and we stopped to heed the call of nature. I went to step off to the side of the road, but luckily and helpfully our driver pointed to two lines of rocks on either side of the road delineating the boundaries of where mine clearing had taken place. Despite the hard work Canada had done to bring the world together to ban anti-personnel mines in the Ottawa treaty signed in 1997, five years later I found myself on the side of a road about to take a step too far.

As an international observer, I had the luxury of going home at the end of a four-month tour and not having to live every day with the threat and the impact of land mines.

I also had the privilege of going home very proud to be a Canadian whose country had played such a prominent role and such a positive role in trying to end the scourge of land mines.

Here I am late at night a decade later in a debate on cluster munitions that makes me much less proud to be a Canadian.

Let me be clear. I am not accusing members on the other side of favouring the use of cluster munitions, but I do think that their excessive concern with U.S. interoperability has led them to introduce legislation that leaves the door open to that use. It is not just about the use of cluster munitions by others, but it also leaves the door open to Canadian complicity in the use of these weapons.

It is bad enough, in my mind, to have worked so hard to get an interoperability clause into the convention itself, but it is still worse to provide larger loopholes like those provided in the language in clause 11 of the current bill.

Instead of, at minimum, sticking to the language that we already had inserted into the convention, we have, as I said, created a larger problem. That is why on this side of the House we worked very hard to try to get an agreement from the government to amend the bill to conform with the language of the convention.

Let us remember that cluster munitions do not just harm civilians. In 2006 in Afghanistan, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 were wounded by land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices.

I look forward to the day when Canada returns to its traditional leadership role in weapons reduction and when we lend our weight to the total abolition of cluster munitions, instead of trying to tunnel loopholes through the convention.

We have here two competing values. On the government side the value of continuing co-operation with the United States and interoperability, and our common goal of trying to eliminate the use of cluster munitions. I believe the government has clearly placed the wrong priority on one of these over the other. For that reason, members on this side of the House will have to vote against a bill that otherwise might help advance a very worthy cause.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer that is to demonstrate contrast.

The best way to demonstrate the contrast in this issue is to compare the land mines agreement to cluster munitions. With the land mines, what we had is Ottawa leading the charge. It became the Ottawa treaty. We had countries around the world signing on and then ratifying it. Canada did likewise. This was done in a very timely fashion. It was done in a very effective way. Then we had a minister of foreign affairs who went around talking about why Canada did what it did.

Let us contrast that to Bill C-6, formerly Bill S-10, before that, just waiting on the back burner, even though it was signed off on in 2008. The only time we hear the government talking about it is when it periodically shows up for debate late at night.

Do members not think that other nations around the world recognize the difference between the two? We lost the opportunity, because we set the bar high in the late 1990s. Now the bar is a whole lot lower.

I am going to suggest that the government has dropped the ball on this. It would have been an excellent opportunity to demonstrate strong international leadership.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that Canada has banned the use of certain weapons by way of an international convention, whether it be for poison gas, bacteriological weapons, or even nuclear weapons—which we call weapons of mass destruction.

We have been invited to participate in another ban. We are being called upon to pass Bill C-6, which involves a ban that all members of Parliament are in agreement with. They do not want to see weapons of mass destruction. Through the back door, however, Canadian soldiers are being asked to engage in combat operations where they can take advantage of these weapons, and even participate indirectly in their deployment and use. That is the problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to express a few thoughts on what the Government of Canada could have and maybe should have been doing to say to the rest of the world that Canada wants to play a strong leadership role in an area where there is a great deal of concern. That opportunity has been somewhat lost through the way the government has brought forward flawed legislation.

I approach the discussion as a member who served in the Canadian Forces. It was not necessarily through my direct service that I acquired experience. It was more from things that occurred indirectly. As members of the forces, we are quite often required to get out and meet with veterans. I served during the 1980s, when there were a significant number of World War II veterans. Some members might be aware that cluster bombs were first used in the Second World War. They were used by the Germans.

I have had many discussions with World War II veterans in my capacity as a member of the Canadian Forces. Unlike what we might see in movies that glamorize war to a certain degree, there are a great number of horror stories.

These are real people. We thank God for them, and we compliment them for their bravery and all the freedoms they have garnered for us. However, the war and its impact on the lives of those who directly fought in it is profound.

The types of weapons that were used will have had a significant impact on the veterans' views. We talked about D-Day. They were getting off landing craft and charging onto a beach with their brothers falling to their left and right as they ploughed their way through all sorts of war machinery and ammunition being aimed at them.

Something that can be gained by reflecting on our past actions and wars. Weapons have caused so much collateral damage that we would find that veterans and current members of the regular forces and the reserve forces would have strong opinions about the issue we are talking about this evening. I have often made reference to some of the horror stories that are out there. I can assure members that there is no lack of opinions among members of our forces.

I made the assertion that I believe that no member in the chamber is going to advocate the benefits of this type of weapon. It should never be glorified in any fashion whatsoever. We recognize the harm that has been done by this type of munition.

When I stand to speak to Bill C-6, a number of things come to my mind. The first is getting people to realize what cluster munitions are. A bomb can come from the ground or from a plane. In essence, it is a hollow shell that will open and within the cavity will be anywhere from a half-dozen up to 2,000-plus munitions that are designed to explode, but not necessarily once they hit the ground. There are all sorts of different types of cluster bombs. Sometimes a cluster bomb will release its contents and as it hits the ground, there will be a massive explosion that will cover the size of a football field. Anything within that perimeter will be virtually destroyed. That includes the loss of lives and limbs and horrendous destruction.

What we do not necessarily appreciate is that when those 2,000 little explosive devices hit the ground, a high percentage never explode. We are not talking about two or three or four; we are talking about hundreds. As some people have referenced, they are not necessarily obvious bombs that someone who is walking in a field would notice and know was a bomb.

Let us say that 2,000 are dropped. Some would estimate that as many as 400 to 600 would not be set off. Even after the war has come to an end, 400 to 600 little bombs from one cluster bomb could be waiting to be set off. That is why in countries where there are no active wars, there is still destruction and the loss of life and limbs. The bombs are still in the fields and have never been set off or found. It is a very costly venture, after a war, to identify the areas where there is a high concentration of cluster bombs and to send a workforce to clear the ground.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we came up with the resources to send in massive numbers of well-protected people and machinery to identify and dispose of those hundreds of thousands of little bombs. We would not get all of them. Thousands would remain, even if we could get the money to do the clearing that many believe is absolutely essential. It is exceptionally costly, and in reality, for many of the countries that have this issue, they just do not have the resources to deal with it.

As a result, what ends up happening is that someone farming in a field or a child playing in a field will find a bomb that has not gone off. Then there is yet another horror story. We know that when they are set off from the ground or from an aircraft that the damage is indiscriminate. They do not discriminate between civilians and military personnel, or children and people in their thirties or well into their sixties. They affect everyone. In fact, during World War II, when the Germans first used cluster bombs, they were not designed to attack just the military. They were meant to cause damage to both the military and civilians, and they were exceptionally effective.

These bombs are designed to kill personnel and destroy vehicles. There is a high level of recognition around the world of how destructive these bombs can be. As a result, there was a Convention on Cluster Munitions. It took place in Ireland in 2008.

I have suggested that the Government of Canada had an opportunity to play a strong international leadership role on what is a very important issue. Unfortunately, it has fallen short in two ways. First, it has not approached this issue in a timely fashion. Remember, this agreement was signed back in 2008, and here we are in 2014. One could question why it took the government so long to bring forward this legislation.

Well over 100 states signed the cluster munitions convention. Approximately 80 of them, maybe a little more, have actually ratified it. Canada was one of the countries that signed, but we still have not ratified it. One would have thought that Canada was in a wonderful position to demonstrate that we understand the need to deal with the issue in a tangible way.

I have had the opportunity to raise this in some of the questions and answers. This is the second part that I am making reference to. That is the loss of opportunity to demonstrate international leadership. I made reference to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

The similarities are amazing in terms of how countries from around the world came together in 1997 and this took place here in Ottawa. It is known as the Ottawa treaty. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and someone I am very proud of, local Manitoba member of Parliament Lloyd Axworthy who was the minister of foreign affairs at the time, went out of their way trying to make something happen. It is interesting that shortly after that Mr. Axworthy was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts.

In the late nineties, Canada was able to demonstrate very strong tangible leadership on this and it had an impact. Yes, there are some countries around the world that still have not signed on and ratified, or chosen not to be a part of it, but we did. I am not 100% sure of this, and I suspect if I am wrong my colleagues across the way and my friends in the NDP will quickly point it out, but I believe that there was likely unanimous support at the time here in the House for that. If I am wrong on that point I would ask that members raise the issue in the form of a question.

The difference is that members recognized back then the importance of the issue and how we were able to not only develop the issue and get countries around the world to sign on and ultimately ratify it, but we were also able to get the necessary legislative requirements in Ottawa to ratify it. I believe that all political parties supported it at the time of its passage.

Fast forward that to today. Where are we today? If the truth be known, this is not the first time we have had the bill here. We had the first reading of Bill S-10 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is not the first time we have had this legislation. I would like to think that had the government brought in the legislation and worked with the opposition, we would have been able to amend the bill before us this evening and it could have received the support of all political entities in the House. That is not going to happen because the government has chosen not to reflect what was ultimately wished for in the convention Canada signed on to in 2008.

I would challenge the government to recognize that we are still not too late, that with the right political will, we can make the changes that would in fact make Canada once again demonstrate good, solid, sound leadership. That is the challenge I would leave to the government.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to Earl Turcotte, the former senior coordinator for Mine Action at DFAIT. Others have noted that he was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention. His words are telling because he was part of that process. He said:

—the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

That is a damning comment on this legislation by somebody who was at the table in the negotiations. Therefore, I would again encourage all members of this House to look seriously at Bill C-6 and look for ways to amend it so we can respect the intent of the convention.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her speech.

I cannot help but react to the question from the member for Palliser because of the parallel that is drawn, for instance, with the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. Article 1 is very clear. It states that each state party to the convention must never use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone anti-personnel mines. This does not prevent the convention from allowing the retention of a small number of anti-personnel mines for training in mine detection, clearance and destruction.

Canada is a signatory to this convention. This bill to ban the use of cluster munitions creates some enormous loopholes that contradict the other commitment we made to ban anti-personnel mines, which has not caused problems with our allies, including the United States.

I would like my colleague to comment further on this precedent, which shows the direction we should have taken with Bill C-6. We should even have gone further in order to ensure that cluster munitions are banned.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did touch on that in my speech. I talked about the convention itself and article 21, which allowed for the interoperability. Canada worked to have that included in the original convention.

I mentioned clause 11 of Bill C-6, as did many other speakers. It goes even beyond the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problem is that it establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions, so it is very problematic.

Members from the NDP and other members have been very clear. The member for Ottawa Centre clearly outlined the problems with clause 11 and outlined why we were opposed to the bill, so I am reiterating that. In essence, something has to be done with clause 11.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the last two evenings I have listened to interventions on Bill C-6 from the ladies and gentlemen across the floor who have said that this is a badly flawed bill. I have not heard what those flaws are. I have heard about some shortcomings of cluster bombs, and I knew about those beforehand, but maybe we could have one of the speakers share with us what those flaws are.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like other members of the NDP, I am rising to speak in opposition to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I want to start with a quote of Paul Hannon from Mines Action Canada. He said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

I think this is an important place to begin the 20 minutes I have to speak on the bill.

As a number of my colleagues pointed out, there was a time when Canada could hold its head high on the world stage for the work it had done in many areas of international relations. Certainly, when we come to things like a number of declarations, Canada has had key roles to play. However, Canada has fallen far short.

I want to give an example of how we as parliamentarians can work and have worked together before I talk about what is wrong with the bill.

As a parliamentarian, I am a proud member of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, or PNND. We had in the House and the Senate a motion passed that supported the Canadian Parliament taking very strong actions in calling for non-proliferation and disarmament. We have worked together across the aisle on that initiative. It is an example of where we can come together on points that we agree on.

What I have heard from members in the House to date on this particular issue is that we all agree that cluster munitions have terrible consequences for people in countries where these munitions have been used. We can all agree that we do not want to see children maimed and killed by these munitions. Therefore, it is troubling that we have a piece of legislation that simply does not go far enough.

I want to point to the Cluster Munition Coalition. This bill was reintroduced after it had been here in another form but lost due to prorogation. However, the Cluster Munition Coalition issued a news release on October 29, 2013 entitled, “Different Name, Same Deadly Consequences”. In the release it says the following:

The bill, that should enact the Convention on Cluster Munitions in the country, proposes legislation that is not only against the spirit and the intent of the Convention, but would also put the lives of civilians at severe risk during and after armed conflicts. While the Convention on Cluster Munitions bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions in all possible forms, Bill C-6 includes a clause (Section 11) which would enable Canada to request other countries to use cluster munitions in the course of joint military operations, and in certain cases enables Canadians to use these outlawed weapons themselves.

I believe there has been an amendment that did change that last piece, but the bill would still allow Canada to work with countries who continue to use cluster munitions.

The article continues:

The Cluster Munition Coalition believes no explanation of the contested clause is plausible.... Only by closing the dangerous loopholes can Canada really claim to be banning cluster munitions and putting the protection of civilians first.

I will quote other sources on the impact of these munitions and why they are so dangerous. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway has put out a release entitled, “Cluster munitions—a humanitarian problem”. It states:

Cluster munitions are a large, and growing, problem. If their use continues to spread, and the number of those using them continues to grow, they may become an even greater humanitarian and development challenge than anti-personnel mines were in the 1990s.

Attention is now being focused on cluster munitions, a general term for a variety of weapons that disperse a large number (anywhere from 10 to several hundred) of submunitions, or bomblets, over a target area. The submunitions are placed in a container that can be dropped from aircraft or delivered by means of artillery shells or missiles. The submunitions, which are designed to explode on impact, are released from the container some distance above the target area, and are armed as they fall.

They go on to talk about the fact that over the last years, they have clearly demonstrated the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of this weapon. They go on to say:

There are two main causes of this.

First, cluster munitions cover large areas, and so do not discriminate sufficiently between civilians and military personnel. Depending on the type of cluster munition, the size of the area they cover ranges from a few hundred square metres to about 20 hectares, equivalent to 40 football fields. In many cases where cluster munitions have been used extensively, they have been used in areas where there is no clear separation of civilians and military personnel, such as cities and agricultural areas. When used in such areas, weapons that cover large surface areas with explosives almost invariably affect civilians.

Second, cluster munitions often produce a large number of ‘duds’, i.e. submunitions that have failed to explode as intended. These highly unstable explosive devices remain lying on the ground, on roofs or in collapsed houses, or are caught in trees. In practice, duds have the same effect as anti-personnel mines, injuring or killing innocent civilians, for example when they are rebuilding destroyed houses or resuming vital agricultural activities.

Because the proportion of duds is generally high—25% is not unusual—and because these weapons are often employed in large numbers, the number of duds can be extremely high. Civilians can continue to suffer casualties and injuries years after a war has ended.

Efforts to clear areas of duds and to assist victims are often extremely resource-intensive. Poor countries with limited resources can only focus on these efforts at the expense of other development aims. According to the Landmine Monitor, the international community provides about USD 400 million per year to assist affected communities in clearing munitions....

Any future proliferation of cluster munitions would greatly increase the need for assistance from the international community. Not only would the humanitarian costs be unacceptable, but a heavy economic burden would fall on affected countries.

Members can see that these are extremely dangerous weapons. They are largely impacting civilians, and many of those are children. It seems unconscionable that all governments, particularly our own government, would not do everything in its power to make sure that the use of these munitions becomes something of the past, and that we would also do everything in our power to contribute the dollars we can to help countries clear these munitions.

The Cluster Munition Coalition provides a bit of background on the convention and says:

The central provision of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is the ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions. This makes it illegal in every country that joins the Convention for anyone to use cluster munitions or engage in any production or trade of the weapon. Other weapons that have been banned in this way include antipersonnel landmines as well as biological and chemical weapons.

The ban also extends to any activity that would assist other countries in the use, stockpiling, production or transfer of cluster munitions. This means that if a country, for example the UK, has joined the treaty banning cluster munitions and takes part in a joint military operation with another country that has not, for example the US, then UK troops must not intentionally do anything that would in any way assist in the use of these weapons during that operation.

They go on to talk about the Oslo process, launched by Norway in 2007 to work with like-minded states on a ban. At that time:

The Convention, signed by 94 states when it opened for signature in Oslo, Norway on 3 December 2008, is an historic achievement. The strength of the treaty is largely due to the prohibition on cluster munitions as an entire category of weapons. The negotiators rejected proposals for broad exceptions from the ban and for a transition period during which cluster munitions could still be used. The obligations relating to victim assistance are ground-breaking; they demand the full realisation of the rights of people affected by cluster munitions and require states to implement effective victim assistance measures. The Convention’s comprehensive ban has contributed to the increasingly powerful international stigma against cluster munitions, making it clear to the world that no actor, including those states that have not yet joined the Convention, should ever use cluster munitions again.

I want to touch briefly on a couple of clauses in the convention itself. A document from March 28, 2014 says the following about the convention:

The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions is a legally binding international treaty that comprehensively prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions, requires destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, and clearance of contaminated land within 10 years. It recognizes the rights of individuals and communities affected by the weapon and requires states to provide assistance. The Convention also obliges countries to assist affected states to fulfill their obligations....

As of 13 September 2013, a total of 113 governments had joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions including stockpilers, former users and producers of the weapon as well as the majority of affected countries.

As members have noted, Canada has signed onto the convention, but we are dealing with the process of ratification at this point.

Article 1 of the convention on general obligations and scope of application says that the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of cluster munitions are prohibited in all circumstances, including in international conflicts and conflicts of a non-international nature. It is also prohibited to assist, encourage, or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited by the convention.

I am not going to go through every article, but there are a couple that I do want to mention.

One of the other pieces that many people have spoken about is important to acknowledge. There is a victim assistance clause under article 5 of the convention, which adopts a holistic view of victim assistance by requiring state parties to ensure that victims of cluster munitions can enjoy their human rights. It notes that state parties are obliged to provide assistance to cluster munition victims, including medical care, rehabilitation, and psychological support, and to assist their social and economic inclusion. Cluster munition victims include all persons directly impacted by cluster munitions, as well as their affected families and communities. It continues that state parties must develop a national action plan to implement victim assistance activities and to designate a national focal point within their government for coordinating all matters related to the article. The article further stipulates that in their work on victim assistance, state parties must consult with and involve cluster munition victims and organizations working on this issue. Furthermore, state parties should integrate victim assistance work into existing mechanisms to make it more cost efficient and effective.

Another article I want to mention is article 21. It is a somewhat unfortunate article that Canada worked to have included, one that allows for continued military interoperability. In it, state parties are required to promote universalization of the convention to notify states not party to the convention of their treaty obligations and to discourage states not party to the convention from using cluster munitions. Moreover, state parties may engage in military co-operation and operations with states not party to the convention that might engage in prohibited activities, but must still respect their article 1 duty to never assist anyone with any prohibited act.

It is troubling that Canada worked to have this included in the convention. We hoped that Canada would work hard to convince every country with whom we have co-operative relationships to ratify the convention. They would sign the convention and then ratify the convention domestically. That would be a much preferable role for Canada to play on the international stage.

I want to touch for a moment on a story from a woman who removes cluster munitions in her home country. This article from the The Guardian of August 2011 is as relevant today as the day it was written. The headline reads, “'I feel like I've saved a life': the women clearing Lebanon of cluster bombs”. The sub-heading reads, “An all-female team is doing the hazardous and painstaking work of removing unexploded...ordnance from the 2006 war”. It states:

Cluster bombs burst open in mid-air and release bomblets that are supposed to detonate on impact, but many of the ones fired on Lebanon did not explode, lying on the ground instead like landmines with the potential to blow up at any time. The women's team works in tandem with other teams of searchers, all co-ordinated by the Lebanese army, to clear up the unexploded ordnance that still litters the countryside.

The woman in the story says:

Women are more patient than men. That is why we are good at this job. We work more slowly and maybe we are a little more afraid than men. Whatever the sex of those searching the undergrowth, the risks are still the same. One careless move, and they could lose a leg. The previous day, a searcher in another mining team was injured, reminding everyone of the dangers of the job. Everyone has their blood type embroidered on their vest for good reason.

Can anyone imagine doing a job where, when people go to work, they have their blood type on their shirt or vest so that if something blows up or they are injured in some way on that job, they can be automatically blood-typed so they can get immediate assistance? Imagine working in those kinds of circumstances.

The woman goes on to say:

“My kids always worry about me, especially yesterday when they heard about the accident”, says Abeer .Asaad, team member and mother to five daughters. “They asked me to quit my job yesterday, they were so scared.

“I was unemployed when I heard that NPA was recruiting wormen for a de-mining team and I applied without telling anyone, not even my husband. When he found out he didn't want me to do it. I was scared too. Just hearing the word 'bomb' would make you scared. But when I began to work it was different, especially when you are careful all the time and follow the rules. You need to be alert and focused when you are in the field, and you must check the ground slowly”.

Zein too says her family have come to accept her job after four years in the field. "I was an English teacher for eight years. I wanted a change, and this could not be more different than teaching”.

“Of course, my family was worried but now they ask me everyday how many clusters I found, how many I destroyed”.

She is the only woman in the country to be trained in explosives demolition and at the end of the day detonates the bomblets they find. “I am so happy when we find them and I can carry out what I have been trained for”.

In the story she says that when she does it, she feels like she has saved a life or she has saved a child from a maiming that would alter his or her life in a way that we cannot even imagine.

Later in the story, the author talks about a case of how random and how accidental this can be:

It was a year after the war that Rasha Zayyoun joined the list of casualties. Life had been returning to normal for the then 17-year-old and her family after the devastation of the previous summer. Her father brought home a bushel of thyme he had harvested for Rasha to clean, but neither of them noticed a bomblet hidden among the leaves. As she began work her finger got caught on the device and thinking it was a piece of rubbish, she threw It aside. As it hit the ground it exploded. Rasha lost her left leg below the knee.

“It was so painful. It was like torture”, she said at her family horne in the village of Maarakeh where she is trying to build a life for herself as a dressmaker. “I have a prosthetic leg now but l can only walk for a few minutes on it”.

Stories like Rasha's are what make Asaad sing and dance when she finds a bomblet.

“I feel like I have saved a life”, she beams. If I find a cluster and take it out, then there will be no victim from it. The feeling is beyond description”.

What we have are teams of men and women all over the world, taking their lives in their hands as they try to clear their countries of these extremely dangerous munitions. I reiterate that we only hope that Canada will play a role on the world stage where we would not have to have this debate because those munitions would not be used by any country in any circumstance.

I have another paper that is a pilot study on technical and non-technical considerations when developing and implementing new technology for the humanitarian mine action community. This is a very good article because it talks about the social, political, cultural and other economic influences on mine action operations. The article talks about the fact that it is not a simple matter to go into countries and remove these munitions, whether land mines or cluster munitions, and that there are numerous social, political and cultural factors that need to be included, like education levels which affect the productivity and ability to use high-tech equipment.

Culture affects the choices of the kinds of tools that can be used because in some countries dogs cannot be used because of some cultural factors. Biotechnology introduced for the purposes of mine action could disrupt the indigenous environmental balance. National governments' interference or support will impact productivity and clearance rates of the operation. There are many factors, and I have not had time to even begin to talk about the impacts on the economy.

When people know, for example, that farm fields have been infiltrated by cluster munitions, what does that do to the productivity of the men and women who have to go and work those fields? It is as simple as the story about picking a time and having their life changed as a result of that.

The NDP will be opposing the legislation. We hope there will be some room for further amendments.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for being here tonight to debate a very important bill. I am honoured to speak to Bill C-6 because it is closely tied to our Canadian identity and to Canada's involvement in the community of nations. In addition, the bill deals with a serious moral issue.

It is crucial for us to carefully study this bill so that we can understand the extent of our commitment as we consider passing or abandoning a bill that will create so many exceptions that, in the end, the convention on cluster munitions that Canada has signed but not yet ratified will be devoid of all substance. The convention has already been undermined by the position taken by Canada, which was looking to remove all substance.

I am 47 years old. The Prime Minister has kept the promise he made to his voter base and his core supporters to profoundly change Canada. He is doing just that.

Bill C-6 is a perfect example of the profound changes that are being made to our country, transforming it to such an extent that I no longer recognize the Canada of my childhood, 25 or 30 years ago. The Canada I was proud of is increasingly becoming an illusion and a cause of embarrassment and even shame for many of our citizens. This is a very serious problem.

Canada has long been a leader and innovator. It still has quite a strong reputation around the world as a country that has promoted, defended and put in place a series of measures and actively supported and guided all the nations of this world in affirming, defending and protecting human rights so that human dignity is defended around the world.

Former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, who was minister of external affairs at the time, established the corps of peacekeepers, soldiers of peace, so that there would be an interposition force in conflicts around the world. Canada was recognized as an innovator for that.

Unfortunately, our country has now become particularly marginal in terms of its involvement and having its soldiers once again proudly wear the blue helmets of peacekeepers and serve as an active interposition force between parties in conflict around the world.

Canada also led the charge within the Commonwealth to force South Africa to abandon its apartheid system, which had been in place for decades. That particularly cruel system had resulted in intolerable situations in which people were subdued and their fundamental rights violated.

They were even killed in some instances. We remember particularly tragic episodes in the history of South Africa in which many people paid with their lives for claiming rights as simple as the right to live in dignity, to have enough to eat, to be housed or simply to have a place in society.

We can also be proud of that legacy of Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government. However, it now seems so long ago, and we appear to be increasingly moving away from the ideal that existed at the time.

In the 1990s, Canada also welcomed and supported the community of nations in implementing the convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines, also called the Ottawa treaty.

As I pointed out when I put a question to my colleague from Don Valley West, our government was so convinced of the validity and value of that treaty that it signed and ratified it on the same day, December 3, 1997. It was an admirable, far-reaching gesture. We can find no better example of a government moving from words to action.

Unfortunately, the effect of the bill that is before us today is to undermine a convention that has already been significantly undermined by the cycle of negotiations that the Canadian government seriously compromised. Canada forced the principle of interoperability into the convention so that our soldiers could potentially transport and use cluster munitions.

This class of weapons is far from new. Here I must admit a part of my own personal journey. When I was young, I was truly fascinated by human beings’ ability to invent all kinds of ways to gain the advantage on the battlefield and to innovate in order to neutralize and even destroy the enemy. That led me to find out about all those ways, land-based, naval and aerial.

It also helped me understand how weapons as particular, dangerous and destructive as cluster munitions could have evolved to such an advanced degree that it really sends shivers down one’s spine. Whether in bomb or missile form, cluster munitions can scatter dozens of mini-bombs or mini-missiles across the landscape. There is virtually no way to protect oneself from this type of weapon. Furthermore, once they have been used, it is very hard and dangerous to neutralize them, as is the case with anti-personnel weapons.

I listened carefully to the speeches by my Conservative Party colleagues, and I admit I absolutely failed to understand how they could defend the indefensible. I hope the image I am going to use will clearly illustrate how untenable the Conservative government’s position on Bill C-6 is.

What is being suggested as a way to prevent our soldiers from being prosecuted and convicted for using or transporting cluster munitions is comparable to my telling my son, if he sees the boy next door hit students with a baseball bat in the school yard, that I give him permission to do the same thing because I think that is fair.

This is absolutely indefensible. I do not know whether there is a better image than that, but that is the one that comes to mind. It is a deliberately brutal image. I will not conceal that fact. It is an image that shows the extent to which I think we are venturing onto a very slippery slope.

In the past three years, it has been an enormous privilege for me to serve as the member for Beauport—Limoilou and to be able to sit in the House of Commons with my 308 colleagues. I have been able to speak with people from all walks of life who have absolutely extraordinary knowledge, expertise and experience, which makes me feel quite humble. It also makes me see how far Canada’s leadership and, more particularly, the influence it can have, have declined everywhere.

I am an international relations enthusiast. A reputation is built gradually. Canada began to build its identity starting in World War I, and even before that, when the Laurier government demanded Canadian independence from the British Crown. It has benefited enormously from a particularly favourable geographic situation and, at certain times, has managed to position itself admirably on the geopolitical stage.

That heritage, that clout and the influence that Canada once enjoyed are being whittled away. Our nation still wields some influence since, fortunately, people in different countries are able to make the distinction. That is what I heard on my few trips abroad. Foreigners tend to make the distinction between the government's position and the values of Canadians. This is a very minor consolation.

It is simply not good enough to say that fortunately, people believe that Canadians still have good values, when the government has gone off track and completely in the opposite direction. We cannot just stand idly by and forsake our parents', grandparents' and great-grandparents' heritage. This heritage makes it possible for Canadians to enjoy a certain degree of privilege. When Canadians meet people from other corners of the globe, they listen to us and respect us. We have credibility when we speak.

There is something that is really disappointing about this government's approach, and that is its hypocrisy. There is no need to mince words.

We cannot claim to want to eventually banish cluster munitions without taking steps to avoid their use. The government has created a huge loophole in the convention with Bill C-6. It is just hot air, nothing but a marketing ploy, a PR exercise that will achieve very little at the end of the day, and that is truly disappointing. It betrays the trust that our constituents place in us. That is why, like my NDP colleagues, I am going to oppose the passage of this bill at third reading.

It is well nigh impossible to describe just how horrific the use of cluster munitions is.

That is why I evoked memories of my adolescence and my young adult life. I was interested in global issues, defence and the tools a country has to wage war and defend its territory. It is staggering to see the capacity of the human spirit to invent new tools that are increasingly sophisticated, broad and blind, as cluster munitions are, in order to target indiscriminately, and even primarily, civilians as opposed to combatants.

I would like to recall a very recent memory. I was learning about the advances in robotic applications and artificial intelligence on the battlefield. I will describe what I learned, which did not completely surprise me. I must admit that I was shocked to see just how easy it is to lose control. It is virtually unstoppable. We all have pictures in our heads of science fiction movies such as Star Wars, in which we see human-like combat robots deploy, fire indiscriminately and find a way of seizing the advantage on the battlefield. Indeed, the fiction pales into insignificance compared to reality.

Now, the reality is robots that have practically no humanoid appearance but a lot of characteristics found in other parts of the animal world, including the insect world. The concept that particularly struck me was that of autonomous robotic swarms. Currently, there is, for example, still some human control over the use of drones. This remote control makes it possible to keep one's distance and kill or injure people elsewhere in the world very easily while feeling a lot less implicated. This leads to huge ethical and personal conscience problems.

However, we now have very small autonomous systems that are able to cause death and destruction in innumerable swarms. I am referring to tens, hundreds or even thousands of small robots that can very easily injure or kill people wherever they are in the world and against which it is impossible to defend oneself, as is the case with cluster munitions.

When I was in university, one of the concepts that I studied in the area of international relations was obviously that of the sword and the shield. This concept indicated that for every improvement made to the sword in order to pierce the shield, the hope was to improve the shield and ward off the increased offensive capacity. Now, this concept seems increasingly outdated to me. Realistically speaking, cluster munitions are a good example of the fact that this indeed the case. It is virtually impossible to guard against swarming, a missile or a cluster bomb.

It is a system of offensive weapons that is particularly pernicious and devious. That is why I want to warn my colleagues. Our soldiers could potentially commit innumerable and immoral actions. In terms of conscience, and considering the responsibility that we have as elected members and, more fundamentally, as Canadian citizens, we need to be cognizant of the fact that we could cause our soldiers to commit such actions.

I hope that my contribution to the debate will have enlightened my colleagues in the governing party and that Bill C-6 will not pass.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. I appreciate the late hour and any reference to Monty Python is welcome, but I find that at this hour we are about to pass Bill C-6 without taking the additional steps that should be taken.

This is one of the rare times that we have seen an amendment, and it did come from the parliamentary secretary, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out. It was to remove the word “use”. However, we recognize—and there have been many examples in this debate—that in the wording, there is far too much latitude around Canadian engagement with the use of cluster munitions, and we could have used much tighter language for interoperability, as we did in the Ottawa land mines treaty.

My question to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta is this: does she believe that at this late date, when we are past the point of amendments, it is worth turning down Bill C-6 in the hope that Canada could implement a treaty that it has in fact ratified to meet its real objectives?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say it is a delight, but it is absolutely a privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I want to make it clear right from the beginning that I do not think that any of us in the House actually support the use of cluster munitions. As my colleague just said, many of us are parents and grandparents. As a teacher I have worked for a peaceful world for all children for many years of my life.

I am also one of those fortunate ones who has never actually lived in a place engaged in war, as many of us in this room. Yet today, with technology what happens in war is brought right into our living rooms through television, the Internet, and our social media. Even if we did not see those images, the description of what cluster bombs and land mines can do is etched in our memories.

I am sure many of us in this room were activists to get rid of land mines. Many of us have worked very hard against the use of cluster bombs as well. Someone described it earlier as little D-sized batteries, hundreds and hundreds of them, exploding and the impact of that explosion hitting something like two to five football fields. When we have that image in our minds, especially now that soccer is being played and we can all see the size of the field, we wonder how many children get impacted. It is not just talking about something that happens overseas, it is also about what our soldiers had to face when they went to Afghanistan. They were in situations where there were land mines and cluster bombs.

Having said that, it is with a great deal of reluctance that I am going to be speaking against the motion that is before us. I was very proud of the day that my country, Canada, signed the UN convention. We were not the only ones; 113 countries from around the world signed that convention and 84 countries have ratified it. We signed the convention in 2008 and here we are in 2014 debating this.

Why has it taken this long for the bill to come into the House? It entered the House a few days before the end of this session under time allocation. If any bill should not be forced through time allocation, it should be a bill like this. We should get to have that kind of debate that is necessary and make sure that we end up with legislation that really works well, especially when the legislation is tackling something as fundamental and as serious as cluster bombs. That is what we should be doing.

I am not going to spend too much time talking about time allocation because that is the way the government does business. It does not really want to hear serious debate or a different point of view. It wants to limit that. In my riding there are people who are concerned and they want me to come to the House and represent them and speak for them. I have constituents in Newton—North Delta who care very deeply about the use of cluster munitions. They are absolutely opposed and they would understand why I am standing in the House today in opposition to this piece of legislation.

Our foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre does an amazing job at committee. I know that he is very persuasive. He has often persuaded me to look at things differently. I know how hard he works, how knowledgeable he is on this file, and how much he cares about Canada's reputation in the international arena. I also know that we would have to go a long way to find a member of Parliament who is more interested in working on this file in a non-partisan way, in a way that will best serve Canada and best serve us in our international community.

This was an opportunity missed by my colleagues across the way. If they had heard not only his concerns but concerns expressed by others, including some of us, and had actually taken a look at section 11 of this legislation, and if they had removed that, then the government would have had the kind of coverage we have heard that the section is supposed to present.

The agreement already has section 22 in it. The interoperability clause is there. Our member, my esteemed colleague, the foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre actually agreed, or offered, to lift the wording from the convention and put it into this legislation word for word, so that it would provide the kind of protection we heard about from our colleagues across the way.

That really was not the intention here. It is only when I listened to him that I began to see why this bill is as flawed as it is today. It may be the process it went through even before it came here. Of course we know that our colleagues across the way do have an allergy to data, science, listening to experts, or anything that might disagree with them. That would mean that they might actually have to change their minds on something. In parliamentary democracy that is supposed to happen. That is the way it works. Otherwise, there would be no need for us to debate. We could all just come in here with our minds already made up, sit, and say that is it. However, that is not how we are set up.

Here we have section 11. I heard the member for Ottawa Centre talking about that particular section and the fact that whenever we go to war we do put all kinds of caveats. We do have all kinds of arrangements that we make as to what we are going to do and what we are not going to do.

Why is it, in this case, that we have that reluctance toward doing that? The member was talking about section 11 and that we have categorically said that Canada will not use cluster bombs. Then we have a section in this bill that says, however, we will direct or ask or lead to. It reminded me of Monty Python. I do not know if members ever watch much British television. Monty Python is extremely funny, but it is also extremely serious. It deals with some horrible issues in a very entertaining way. As the member for Ottawa Centre was going through the bill, I thought that it was beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, where we are going to say, “We will not use cluster munitions. We will not, however, we can direct or take direction or give direction for the use thereof.”

Therein lies the problem with this bill. That is why, in good conscience, being a mother, a grandmother, and a teacher, I could not possibly support this. There is an escape hatch in this bill that is miles wide.

We either believe in the use of cluster munitions or we believe in banning them. We cannot have these halfway measures when it comes to something as critical as this. I think about my own grandchildren, and I think, “There, but for the grace of God, go they”. They could have been unfortunate enough to have been born in a war-torn country where, as little kids, they pick up little batteries or what they think are little toys that could explode. We all know how horrific that is. I do not have to paint that picture. I actually do not have the heart to paint that kind of a picture. Why would we want to have an escape hatch that is a mile wide when we know that the interoperability clause in section 22 already gives protection and cover to Canadian soldiers?

I heard a lot about our neighbour, the U.S., how we co-operate with the Americans and we work closely with them, and they are our great ally. All of that is true. However, we do not always agree with everything that our colleagues to the south of us believe in. We just found out recently that we do not agree with them on some pretty major issues, like maybe pipelines. However, on the other hand, when we deal with the Americans, when we have gone into war with them, we have stipulated what our forces are going to do or not going to do. Those are the kinds of agreements that are made because when we decide to go into a place where our soldiers go, we do not say, “Just go and do whatever”. When we are working in partnership, whether with the U.K. or Australia or the U.S.—

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join this debate tonight.

I want to begin by thanking and congratulating all the members of the committee, who I believe did an exceptional job of pulling this bill together and giving us a bill that we in this government should be very proud of.

As members well know, cluster munitions can be delivered by aircraft, rockets, or artillery shells. Rather than detonating on impact, they open beforehand and spread a number of smaller bomblets over the target area. There are variations intended for use against different kinds of targets, but all of them are capable of causing tremendous damage. Because they can strike a large area, there is a greater risk that non-military targets or non-combatants will be hit. With some types, especially those which contain large numbers of small bomblets, any remnants that do not detonate as intended can remain lethal long after the conflict itself has ended.

If the bomblet explodes later, the result is devastating, with victims sustaining horrific injuries or even being killed. The unacceptable harm to civilians caused by cluster munitions was the motivation for negotiations on a treaty to address these weapons. After three years of sometimes difficult negotiations, the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted in Dublin in May 2008. The convention entered into force in August 2010. It builds on and complements other international agreements that address weapons that are prone to having indiscriminate effects. The convention prohibits countries that ratify it from using, acquiring, developing, retaining and producing cluster munitions, weapons that continue to kill and maim innocent people long after wars have ended.

It also prohibits them from assisting or encouraging anyone to engage in any of those activities. The convention entered into force in August 2010. Canada has already taken concrete steps to fulfill its future commitments under the convention. Canada has never directly used cluster munitions and even though we have not yet ratified the convention, we have already committed not to use them in the future either. Canadian companies have never produced these munitions, and while Canada does not have an existing stockpile, the Department of National Defence has already removed cluster munitions from operational stocks and they are in the process of being destroyed.

Canada is also active in promoting the universalization and implementation of the convention with international partners. It has voluntarily submitted annual transparency reports under the convention. Canada has contributed more than $215 million since 2006 to mine action projects which address the impacts of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

During his visit to Laos on October 15, 2013, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs announced $1 million in Canadian support for two projects aimed at clearing unexploded ordnance in Laos, the most heavily contaminated country in the world in terms of cluster munition remnants. Hon. members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development will recall that the minister undertook to set aside $10 million over the next 18 months to continue Canada's proud tradition of support to demining efforts, victim assistance and risk awareness programs. All of these activities are being implemented before Canada's ratification of the convention.

Only a small part of the convention actually requires legislation, and in keeping with its commitment, the government is now proceeding with this element to complete the package. The prohibiting cluster munitions act would fully implement the legislative requirements of the convention and its enactment by Parliament is the only major step that must still be taken before Canada can ratify the convention and join other states parties in working toward its full global acceptance and implementation.

For this treaty to be effective, as many countries as possible must join it and ensure that its provisions are enforced. Ideally, all countries will join, ensuring universalization of the treaty. To date, 84 states parties are already bound by it and another 29 states have signed it. If the bill before us becomes law, Canada can then take the final steps and ratify the convention.

The government is committed to do all it can to help ensure that the treaty is effective. To that end, the government will collaborate with our friends and allies, like the U.K. and Australia, as well as other states parties, to promote the universality of the treaty by ensuring that as many countries as possible join it and adhere to its requirements.

Bill C-6 will only implement those parts of the convention that require penal legislation in Canada. Other provisions are carried out by other means. The obligation to advocate in favour of the convention's norms, for example, will be implemented through diplomatic channels, while programming is in place to provide assistance to states affected by cluster munitions.

Let me turn now to those provisions that do require legislative implementation and that are included in Bill C-6, which is before us today.

The convention requires states parties to extend the prohibitions it imposes into domestic criminal law. The bill, when enacted, will prohibit the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, movement, import, and export of cluster munitions.

The bill will also prohibit the stockpiling of cluster munitions in Canada through the broader proposed offence of possession in Canada. This offence will cover any form of possession, including stockpiling, and can be easily enforced and, if necessary, prosecuted in Canada's criminal justice system.

The bill will also prohibit anyone from aiding or abetting another person in the commission of a prohibited activity. This will capture a number of potential cross-border scenarios where people or organizations subject to Canadian law engage in activities that are prohibited by the convention and will also ensure that those who are subject to Canadian law can be prosecuted for the offences in Canada.

While many countries could agree to an immediate ban on cluster munitions, each country has its own defence policy and security concerns, and it is clear that not all states are currently prepared to accept this. Some of the countries that prefer a different approach to the problem are our friends and allies.

Other members of this House have suggested that Canada simply prohibit cluster munitions entirely and confront our allies with a choice between not having these munitions or not co-operating with Canada. The approach of the government, which is reflected in this bill, is more nuanced, and it is the approach which was ultimately agreed upon when the convention itself was negotiated.

Under the bill, and the convention itself, Canada will not have cluster munitions. We will not directly use cluster munitions. However, we will continue to co-operate with our allies in training and actual military operations. Some of these operations could well involve the use of these munitions by our allies, but Canada will not expressly request the use of cluster munitions if the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control.

The policy that we are agreeing to in our international obligations will be given the force of law for Canadians by this bill. No person in Canada may possess, make, or use a prohibited munition, and no person in Canada will be permitted to take any part in activities, such as design or manufacture, even if it takes place in a country which does not ratify the convention.

On the other hand, no public servant or member of the Canadian Armed Forces will be subject to prosecution and punishment for participating in the kinds of Canadian co-operation with other countries that are specifically allowed by this treaty.

The bill will subject anyone who engages in illicit activities with respect to cluster munitions to prosecution and punishment, and it will assure other countries that we will not use private companies to retain stockpiles or manufacturing capacity that we would be prohibited from having as a states party.

However, we must take a responsible and prudent approach in deploying the criminal law so that we do not punish our own solders for military co-operation activities that are permitted under the convention.

The bill does not always use exactly the same language as the convention. This is because the convention is an international treaty that speaks to countries, while the bill is Canadian criminal law that speaks to the Canadians who are expected to obey it and the courts that will be called upon to apply it.

One issue that has been raised is whether the bill should make it an offence for a person to invest in a company that makes cluster munitions. It would send the wrong signal to markets to criminalize investments as such, it is not required by the convention, and it would be very difficult to enforce the practice. What the proposed legislation would do, however, is make it an offence to aid or abet another person or company in activities such as the making, development, or transfer of cluster munitions. This includes not only investment scenarios but other forms of encouragement or assistance as well.

If a person in Canada knowingly assists or encourages a company to commit a prohibited act, whether this is by investing capital resources or by providing technical or engineering expertise, then that person would be committing the offence even if the company aided or abetted is in another country where making the munitions is not a crime. This is an important balance to strike. If someone buys a company to make weapons offshore or specifically invests in order to fund illicit activities for a higher profit, it should be and would be a crime. On the other hand, if a Canadian, without any knowledge or intention to aid or abet the production of cluster munitions, holds a few shares in a large company that makes munitions, it should not and would not be a crime.

The bill would not implement investment policy but would establish criminal offences that can be prosecuted and punished. The use of established criminal law principles for aiding and abetting to draw the line between what is permitted and what is punishable would protect Canadians and ensure that the legislation complies with their charter rights.

The legislation before the House is solidly in step with Canada's commitment to protecting civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war. Canada's ratification of the convention will give a strong signal of that commitment.

I am proud to support Bill C-6, which would enable us to ratify the convention and begin to end the scourge of cluster munitions, once and for all. I urge members of the House to join me in supporting this bill. There is work to be done under the convention, and the sooner Canada can take its rightful place with other state parties, the better.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate at third reading of Bill C-6. It has had a rather long history. In fact, it goes back to a bill we had before the last prorogation of Parliament. It was actually a Senate bill. Just to remind people, this is a bill to implement an international treaty. At the time, I was deeply concerned that we had a pattern of having bills as important as Bill C-6 being initiated in the Senate. I say that because it is important that we are the ones to initiate legislation in the House.

However, we had a prorogation. The government actually did bring the bill back to the House of Commons, which is important. I had expressed my dismay and concern about the fact that it had its origins in the Senate. I had talked to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as was already intimated by my colleague on the foreign affairs committee, the member from Saskatchewan. It was a matter of trying to convince the government that the Senate bill was problematic.

I went to the government and said that clause 11 was a problem. We have gone over this many times in the House. The person who actually negotiated this on behalf of the government said that the bill was flawed. This was not the opposition saying this. This was actually someone who negotiated the international treaty. To give some context, we send our brightest and most competent people to negotiate treaties on our country's behalf. As has been mentioned, the person who did that on behalf of our country looked at the bill and said that it undermined the integrity of the treaty we signed.

When we sign treaties, that is the first step. Then we have to implement them, because otherwise they are just a signature on a piece of paper. The implementation of the treaty is the bill we have, and it is absolutely critical to get it right.

I went across the aisle and talked to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and told him that this was a problem, particularly clause 11. I noted the fact that our own diplomat who negotiated the treaty had a problem with it. The minister listened, and I waited to see what response there would be. This was a Senate bill, remember. Sadly, the bill stayed put. The Conservatives did not change it, so it became a controversy not just here in Canada, as I will outline in my speech, but in the international community. This is not just about the opposition critiquing the bill. It is about what the international community is saying about the bill. It is about what our very own diplomats who negotiated the treaty are saying about the bill, which is that the bill is problematic.

It is worth noting that after almost two years of trying to engage the government to amend the bill, the Conservatives did allow one amendment. It is important to note that since 2011 I can count on one hand the number of times the Conservatives have accepted amendments.

It took a very long time to get a small amendment. It is absolutely true that I tried to work with the government on this. However, the amendment it brought forward was not enough to deal with the issues we have with the integrity of the bill as juxtaposed with the treaty.

It is very important to lay that out, because it shows that the government, first of all, took a long time to get the legislation going. We had signed the treaty. It took a couple of years to present legislation. At the same time, other countries that had signed the treaty had ratified it. It was put in place, and they were moving forward.

This is really important, because right now, as we speak, cluster munitions are being used in conflict. We are having to catch up, just like we had to do with land mines.

These are heinous munitions. It is difficult to understand how people contemplate these forms of munitions. Unlike land mines, which are planted in the ground, cluster munitions actually fall from the sky, and when they land, they explode with bomblets right across the terrain. No one is able to actually track them. Land mines are a bit different. We can find out from enemy combatants where they are planted. With cluster munitions, that is not the case.

The majority of victims, as we know, are civilians. Too many of them are children, because often children mistake them for toys. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this himself. He was very moved when he went to Cambodia and heard testimony. I gave this testimony last time we debated the bill. Kids actually take these back to their homes and go to play with them, and they blow up, They remove limbs and also take lives. These are heinous things. We have to get this right.

The government took its time bringing legislation forward. It tried it in the Senate and prorogation ended it. The same is offered here, after I went to the government.

What were some of the concerns? They have been enumerated numerous times, but I want to give a critique, not just from me but from the international community, on Canada's legislation for the implementation of an international treaty. There are a couple that are worthy of noting. We have noted them before, but they require repetition.

Let me quote first from our friends from Norway, who were responsible for helping to get this treaty together. The Norwegian ambassador, Steffen Kongstad, whose country holds the presidency for the actual process of the treaty, said:

We would normally not comment on the internal process in other countries. But I can say that we would not present such a law in the Norwegian parliament. It seems somewhat inconsistent with the purpose of the convention.

I do not think I have to tell members that diplomats speak diplomatically. When a diplomat who is in charge of the overall integrity of the treaty says to one of the member states that is a signatory to the treaty that he would not actually bring this forward to his own parliament, that is a very strong, direct signal from a diplomat. It is basically saying, “You got it wrong. You need to change it”. It is important to note that.

The Red Cross is another international voice we have heard from. Again, it is very rare. It is in the mandate of the Red Cross that it does not comment on a country's activities, behaviours, et cetera, because it undermines the integrity of the Red Cross. It is to be objective. It was actually the Red Cross that cited our legislation as not being sufficient, as undermining the treaty.

It is perplexing. Many people are asking how clause 11, on interoperability, happened. We have had this debate back and forth between the government and members of my party about why we had to have this. Other countries and people who helped negotiate and implement this legislation are actually saying that it is not the case. We can have interoperability and still ensure that none of our forces, diplomats, or anyone involved in the theatre of war would have anything to do with cluster munitions. The government says we cannot do that but then says that we will never use them. It has an inconsistency in its argument.

The question is how we got here. I would argue that it is the way the government does policy, particularly on international affairs. What we learned after we heard from the former diplomat who actually negotiated the treaty was that after the treaty was negotiated and the government signed the treaty, it went to implement it. Who did the government go to exclusively? It went to the Department of National Defence. It should consult the Department of National Defence. It is very important. There is expertise. We heard from the department at committee. It was extraordinarily important to hear from it, because it has to know how to implement the actual legislation in theatre. However, what was astonishing, and it is a pattern with the government, was that it was not consulting the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It is astonishing. Here is how I understood and still understand the way things should work when it comes to international treaties, particularly around conflict. It is the role of the diplomats to negotiate these treaties, and it is the role of our diplomats and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the top diplomat in cabinet, to look at how to implement legislation. He or she should be going to the department and seeking out the best advice from experts in diplomacy on how we implement a treaty in legislation.

That did not happen. What we had instead was the Department of National Defence having the first go at it, and we ended up with this clause 11. That's nothing to say against the military; it protects itself. We know that. That is what institutions and departments do.

What the department did was that it put in clause 11 in the bill, after section 22 of the treaty, which talks about interoperability. It was pretty clear, and I actually asked for an amendment to lift section 22 out of the treaty and to put it into the legislation. Then there would have been an absolutely direct connection between the treaty and legislation, by cut and pasting that treaty section. However, they did not do that. What they did was put in clause 11.

Clause 11 actually states, and part of this was changed through the amendment process, that Canadian Forces personnel could use cluster munitions. I say that, and most people think it is unbelievable that we would sign a treaty banning the use of cluster munitions, but then have in the implementing legislation of that very treaty a clause that would put Canadian Forces personnel into a situation where they could use cluster munitions.

We can see the inherent contradiction and paradox within the legislation. Why did the government do that? We heard from the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Natynczyk, who said that this was very important, that there had to be clarity of purpose and direction when doing joint operations with our friends in the States. I could not agree with him more. It is true.

However, it does not preclude our having different protocols. Why? Well, when I and others were in Afghanistan, we knew on the ground that there were different caveats for different operations. They were clear. In fact, in ISAF's mandate on how it worked on the ground in Afghanistan, there were caveats for different forces who made up the international security forces in Afghanistan. They are caveats, different ways of operating in the field.

There should not be too many caveats, because they can undermine the coherence of a mission. However, we have them. The general knew that. However, he was able to get the government to put in what he wanted. What he wanted was clear: it was to have an exemption for the Canadian Forces in the case of interoperability and a scenario with the Americans where cluster munitions were used.

It is very important to note all of these facts: where the bill came from, who negotiated the bill, and the fact that we had this section 11, which the Red Cross and the diplomats who helped negotiate it for Canada, and Norway, which was responsible for the overall framework of the agreement, all said the same thing about. I will add here, just for good measure, because I know that the Prime Minister is a fan of Australian prime ministers, that we had a former Australian prime minister with the same party leaning as the Prime Minister saying this was a flawed bill.

If we put that all together, what do we have? It is a flawed bill that undermines not only the integrity of the treaty but also our reputation as a country, because our signature is on the bill. It is the legislation we are implementing.

All of these things come together with the following result. Let me read into the record what we were able to negotiate with the government as an amendment. We negotiated paragraph 11(1)(c), which would have allowed, as I was just explaining, the Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. It is true that the government took that out. That has to be acknowledged, but what was left in there was the rest of clause 11, after it was amended. So the government listened to us and took out one part of section 11, which would have allowed Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. This inherent paradox was taken out. However, they left in the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person [in the forces]...in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition...

What that means in English is that we could have the Canadian Forces directing an operation using cluster munitions. Let us put forward a scenario: I have cluster munitions and I am in the Canadian Forces. Before, the exemption allowed the Canadian Forces to directly drop the bomb. Now, according to what we still have and what is problematic in the bill, we could direct another force to drop cluster munitions.

That is the first problem that we have with the bill. We are glad that they took out the part that the Canadian Forces shall not use them, but directing or authorizing activity for others to use them is still problematic. It is a matter of accountability.

Yet again, there is another problem with clause 11. It refers to the Canadian Forces “expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition”. Again, directing the use of cluster munitions is allowed by the Canadian Forces, and in paragraph (b) of clause 11, they can request their use. They can ask someone to bring in a raid and drop cluster munitions on a certain target if it is for the Canadian Forces. It makes no sense. We are saying this is a treaty to ban cluster munitions, but in clause 11 we are saying it is okay for the Canadian Forces to direct or request the use of cluster munitions.

Here is the part that I find fascinating. When this point was made to the government time and time again by me, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the former prime minister of Australia, other experts, and the diplomat who negotiated this treaty, the government said that it was true that it would allow the Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions, that there was an exemption here. However, here is the caveat: the government said that it would direct, through the Chief of Defence Staff, the banning of the use of cluster munitions.

This is fine, but it is simply a promise. We are talking about legislation to follow a treaty. We have a massive loophole like this, and the government is covering it by saying that it would direct our Chief of Defence Staff to tell our forces that we shall never use them. Members can see the contradiction. Why would we not put it into legislation to ensure that there is no scenario where Canadian Forces would use cluster munitions?

This gets into the most important argument, which is the debate that we had at committee and which is still happening outside Canada in regard to our reputation in implementing the treaty. As my colleagues already mentioned, it is the worst legislation of any signatory to the treaty.

The government says that because of interoperability, it does not really want to put in these exemptions but that it has to because of the nature of our relationship with the United States. Other NATO countries can have interoperability, according to section 22 of the treaty, and follow it, which is what we hoped and negotiated for. However, we are Canada and we are special, so we must have these loopholes.

Here is the problem. In the case of Afghanistan, as I already mentioned, we were there with the Brits, the Dutch, and others who are signatories to the treaty. They do not have this exemption. They have interoperability with the Americans.

The fact of the matter is, and my colleagues know this, that we can be explicit as to what we will be doing in the field, be it through caveats or joint training. If we are doing joint training, it is pretty obvious that we would be using the opportunity in our joint training with our American friends to say that they know that we have signed this treaty, here is the legislation, here is what we will be doing to make sure that Canada, in joint operations with our friends in the States, will not be using cluster munitions in theatre. We have already done this with landmines.

Let me finish with this. We got the government to make one amendment, but it is clearly not sufficient when the government is still allowing troops to guide and request the use of cluster munitions. That is why clause 11 must go. That is why we will oppose this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak to the cluster munitions bill again tonight and to put a question for my friend, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

We had a fairly unfortunate debate on a previous occasion in this place where there was what I tend to call a dialogue of the deaf. Some MPs were claiming that because Bill C-6 was very weak, and, in my view, unacceptably weak, the current administration did not care about getting rid of cluster munitions or about the children who had been injured by them. I reject that totally. I know that the hon. member and everyone in the House do not want cluster munitions to be used.

I want to preface my question for the parliamentary secretary by saying that I accept everything he has said. This bill is supposed to implement a cluster munitions treaty, which means that Canada is on record as being opposed to the use of cluster munitions.

My questions are very specific.

First, why has the administration failed to take the steps that should have been taken in this bill, as our other allies have done, to ensure that investment in cluster munitions is specifically prohibited.

Second, when the interoperability sections were created, why was the same language not used as is in the Ottawa land mines treaty bill, which is much more restrictive and does not allow as many loopholes as does the language we find in this legislation?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight. I hope we have a good debate here tonight. I am not so sure that we did not catch the NDP off-guard a couple of days ago when we did the last stage of discussion of this bill, because it seemed they came up with the same talking points all evening. Its members had about two points. Hopefully, tonight, we can have a broader discussion.

We do want to talk about Bill C-6, which is about cluster munitions. The speech I have here tonight will lay out a good explanation of what Bill C-6 is about, why it needs to be put in place, and how it would be a good balance for Canadians, for Canadian troops, and for our responsibilities around the world.

I do not think that there is a person in this House who does not share with me the sense that the world would be far better off without cluster munitions. They cause death, injury, and damage wherever they are used, and they can create significant long-lasting humanitarian consequences for civilian lives and for civilian livelihoods. This is because cluster munitions disperse large numbers of smaller bomblets, increasing the risk that some of these munitions will strike non-combatants and that any submunitions that do not explode will cause an ongoing threat to civilian populations and reconstruction.

Munitions can be dropped from an aircraft, or they can be shot out of artillery or out of rockets to attack a variety of targets, such as armoured vehicles or troops. When the munitions release the bomblets, some will detonate, but many do not. The result is small, unexploded submunitions lying on the ground. Like anti-personnel mines, they must be located, disarmed, and disposed of safely before a backyard, family garden, public park, or any other land can be returned to any kind of normal use. The bomblets are, to an extent, even more problematic than landmines, because they scatter at random, which makes them much harder to locate, to identify, and then to destroy.

Today, almost 30 countries are contaminated by cluster munitions from past wars. Some are recent, but in other cases, wars that ended long ago have left a legacy that remains armed and lethal. In countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, for example, cluster munitions dropped more than 40 years ago during the Vietnam War continue to cause deaths and injuries. Similarly, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and more recently, Syria and Libya, are also plagued by unexploded cluster munitions used in these recent conflicts or, in the case of Syria, a civil war that is still going on.

Canada has always been committed to protecting civilians from the indiscriminate use of explosive remnants of war. Canada has never produced cluster munitions. I want to point that out because there may be some confusion here later, once the opposition begins speaking. Though we have had them in our arsenal in the past, we have never used them in our military operations. That needs to be understood as well. That is why we have no problems in getting rid of cluster munitions stockpiles in our possession, even before ratifying the convention.

It was only logical, therefore, that we played a leading role in the negotiations that resulted in the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. The convention itself prohibits the use, the development, the production, the stockpiling, and the transfer of cluster munitions. I want to go through that list again. It prohibits the use, the development, the production, the stockpiling, and the transfer of cluster munitions. Canada is already in the process of implementing the convention. Some of its requirements will require the domestic implementation of legislation before Canada can ratify, which is what Bill C-6 is here to do.

The Government of Canada will be committing itself to refraining from making, using, stockpiling, or transferring cluster munitions. Again, that needs to be made clear before the debate goes any further. I will repeat it. We are going to refrain from making, using, stockpiling, or transferring cluster munitions. The bill would make it an offence for individual Canadians to do the same. This is the last major requirement here in Canada before we can ratify the convention. I urge hon. members to support it, so that we can take our place among the growing community of states parties that have renounced these weapons.

The bill also reflects important compromises that were made during the negotiation of the convention in order to ensure that the legitimate defence and security interests of the countries that are party to the treaty are upheld. We would much prefer a world in which all of our allies joined the convention, but the reality is that we are not there yet. Given this situation, Canada and others had to find a way to negotiate a strong treaty, while at the same time remembering that we need to continue to co-operate with some of our closest military allies who may not soon be in a position to join it.

This is in contrast with what I heard one of the official opposition members say the other night, that we just should not bother to co-operate at all with the United States. That is a position that is completely impractical, but the NDP members seemed to think that they could embrace that.

The Canadian Armed Forces work closely with our allies, especially the United States. Our national security depends on that co-operation. Canadian soldiers, sailors and air personnel regularly join with their American counterparts in training and combat. We exchange personnel so that each of us is closely familiar with the operational procedures of the other.

The United States has not joined the convention and while Canada will continue to urge our American friends to do so, it is necessary for us to collaborate in a manner which will respect our new obligations on the one hand, while also respecting our obligations to our close ally on the other.

In order to allow countries and their military forces to co-operate with one another, article 21 was included in the convention. However, the armed forces of a state party cannot co-operate with those of a non-party state if the activities involved are a crime for their individual members. I think that is obvious.

In order to allow Canadian Armed Forces personnel to continue to work, train, fight and co-operate with their American counterparts without the risk of individual criminal liability, under this bill, the principles that are in article 21 of the convention must also be reflected in Canadian criminal law.

The bill would do this by creating specific new offences that would apply to everyone in Canada and then by excluding from those offences personnel who co-operate as permitted by the convention. Such individuals must generally be Canadian officials or members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They must be engaging in permitted forms of military co-operation and that co-operation must be taken with members of armed forces of state that is not a party to the convention.

One of the important benefits of article 21 is that it allows countries that wish to join the convention to do so without having to give up military co-operation with those allies that have not yet become state parties to the convention.

It was essential that the treaty permit this kind of co-operation between the militaries of countries that have joined the treaty and the countries that have not. Without such provisions, many countries that wanted to address the impact of cluster munitions by joining the treaty would likely not have done so. Instead, with the inclusion of article 21, countries are not forced to choose between working with their allies in the interest of broader peace and security and their efforts to do all that they can to get rid of the scourge of cluster munitions.

Indeed, article 21 enables more countries to join the treaty, thereby moving us much closer to the eventual elimination of these munitions.

While some may not like the provisions of article 21, it represents a negotiated compromise between states, and it forms an integral part of the fabric of the convention.

Clause 11 of this bill, which we are addressing tonight, implements the terms of article 21. Clause 11 would ensure that Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be able to continue to work with the American armed forces or any other allied non-party state, such as Turkey, Israel or Poland, all states that have not signed on yet. That includes by joining their military units on exchange without exposure to criminal liability.

I need to point out that Canadian Armed Forces members will never be permitted to directly use cluster munitions at any time. If people hear anything different later tonight, that will be an attempt to mislead and misdirect people to what is the actual reality of this bill and the treaty.

A Canadian Armed Forces order will be issued to ensure this. However, given concerns that were raised in relation to clause 1, at committee we were able to work together and the government agreed to an amendment that was unanimously adopted. The amendment would ensure what the government had intended all along, and which the Canadian Forces order will reinforce, and that is that members of the Canadians Armed Forces may never directly use cluster munitions at any time, even when they are on exchange with a non-state party's military unit.

The Canadian Armed Forces order will reflect all of the requirements of Bill C-6 as ultimately adopted by Parliament. In addition, and going beyond the requirements of the convention, the order would also prohibit the transport of cluster munitions aboard carriers belonging to or under the control of the Canadian Armed Forces. It would further prohibit Canadian Armed Forces members on exchange with states that were not party to the convention from instructing and training in the use of cluster munitions.

Most of the requirements of the convention do not require domestic legislation. Bill C-6 only implements the requirements that make it a necessity. For example, the convention requires Canada itself not to develop, stockpile or use prohibited munitions. We have not, we will not develop them and we will not use them. Also, no legislation is needed to destroy the stockpiles that we do have. The government can do that on its own.

However, the treaty obliges Canada to extend these prohibitions to private companies and individuals in Canada by enacting the necessary criminal offences. It is these offences, along with the supporting definitions and exclusions, that form the core of Bill C-6.

The bill would make it illegal for any person or organization in Canada, and members can go through the list as it is extensive, to develop, produce, acquire, use, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. It would also make it a crime to aid, abet or counsel someone else to do these things, even if they were done in a country where cluster munitions were not illegal.

This expansion of Canadian criminal law then makes it necessary to exclude individuals within the Canadian Armed Forces and other public officials for scenarios in which they engage in the forms of military co-operation that are permitted by the convention.

One of the long-term challenges of this convention will be its full international acceptance or its universalization. If we really want to rid the world of the scourge of cluster munitions, we need to ensure that as many countries as possible sign and ratify the treaty and, more important, that they fulfill their obligations to destroy all stockpiles of these weapons. Ideally, all countries of the world would join the convention. However, until that day arrives, it is important for all of us who believe in this treaty and its goals to continue with those efforts.

The Government of Canada is committed to doing just that. Of course, we are not alone in encouraging other countries to join the convention. Many of our friends and allies, like the U.K., Australia, France, Germany and others, are also working hard in this regard, as all parties to the convention are expected to do.

As I have already noted, the United States has not joined the treaty and may not do so any time soon. Canada accepts that other countries are and should be free to make their own decisions on what international obligations to sign onto, but we nonetheless will continue to encourage the Untied States and others to support this historic and important treaty.

I know that all members in the House, like me, are anxious for Canada to complete its ratification of the treaty. As soon as the bill is enacted, Canada will be able to take the next step to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The government has already begun fulfilling its future commitments to do away with the cluster munitions under its control. As I have said, the Department of National Defence has destroyed the vast majority of the former stockpile of cluster munitions and hopes to finish that destruction process by the end of this summer.

Internationally, Canada has participated actively in the first four meetings of state parties to the treaty in order to encourage its universal acceptance. We have also voluntarily submitted annual reports on our implementation of the treaty. Once we have ratified it, the commitment to submit annual reports will become a legal obligation.

These reports, which each state party must submit, show the rest of the world what each country is doing to get rid of cluster munitions. They will also explain what countries are doing to clear contaminated areas and rehabilitate victims. Canada believes that such reporting is important and necessary to ensure that all countries are meeting their obligations, and that is why we are already voluntarily providing these reports.

Finally, hon. members should be aware that Canada is also helping some of the nearly 30 countries that are contaminated by cluster munitions to clean up these explosive remnants. Since 2006, we have contributed more than $215 million to Mine Action projects around the world, which address the problem of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

For example, Canada has provided funding for projects in Laos for education on the risks of cluster munitions and for the clearance of those munitions. We have also provided funds to Bosnia and South Sudan to clear cluster munitions still lying around from the recent civil wars.

In November of last year, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that the government would give an additional $10 million over 18 months to do even more to clear mines and cluster munitions to help victims of weapons and to educate local populations to be more aware of the risks.

In conclusion, I know hon. members on all sides of the House share my concerns about the tragic humanitarian consequences of these weapons. I urge all hon. members to support the bill so it can be enacted as quickly as possible and allow Canada to ratify the treaty and do our part to get rid of cluster munitions around the world.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

moved that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-6.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

Is the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North rising on a point of order?

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Agricultural Growth Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously NDP members are the only ones working in the House tonight. I am very proud of them.

I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. Before getting to the main part of my speech, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with my wonderful colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We are all looking forward to hearing from him.

The bill before us today is another omnibus bill, courtesy of the Conservatives. This is no surprise. We have become accustomed to their way of doing things. However they introduced a refreshing change. Even though the bill amends nine different laws—all the amendments are contained in the same document—they did something very unusual. For once, they focused exclusively on agriculture and agri-food. They seem to have learned something from the previous omnibus bills. At least this time around they have not presented us with a host of amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the bill. It is an improvement and we hope the Conservatives will also improve the way they manage the proceedings in the House and the democratic process in Canada. However this will be the subject of another debate.

I will go back to bill C-18. This bill deals with various issues, from plant breeders' protection to the reinforcement of border security mechanisms, as well as increased access to the advance payments program. Therefore, this bill deals with several issues that are important to our farmers and, by extension, to our fellow citizens. This is why the NDP will support bill C-18 at second reading.

It is important to us that this bill be examined in detail. Indeed, even though we support some measures included in the bill, we believe that they should be studied in depth, as if often the case when the Conservatives introduce an omnibus bill, regardless of what they want Canadians to believe. Various experts have already given their opinion on this and are calling for amendments. The NDP thinks that we should take the time we need to hear them. We must invite experts who wish to speak on the issues included in bill C-18. As parliamentarians, we must also listen to the concerns of the farmers in our ridings to try and come up with the best bill possible.

As we all know, it is simply not in the Conservatives' DNA to collaborate, to negotiate and to look for improvements. Still, we hope that some of that may happen if the bill is sent to committee. This bill needs to benefit all farmers and producers, as well as all Canadians.

As I said, the NDP supports parts of the bill. A few provisions address the concerns of the people from my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. We are in a rural area with numerous family farms, spread over the Portneuf RCM, the Jacques-Cartier RCM and the town of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures.

Constituents and producers often contact me to discuss agricultural issues. Access to funding is a challenge, as is probably the case in many parts of the country. I am sure that everyone in the House who represents a rural riding hears similar complaints from their constituents.

It is good to know, then, that Bill C-18 improves access to the advance payments program. This would make it easier for producers to access credit through cash advances. Accordingly, producers would be better able to meet all their financial obligations throughout the year, while improving their access to cash. New credit options would also be available to producers whose farm is not their main source of income to support their families.

All of these important changes address my constituents' concerns. However, as I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing yet again with an omnibus bill.

Some of the measures it contains warrant some reworking. They would benefit from expert advice from people who really know the field and work in it every day. That is why we would like to refer the bill to committee. We would like to take the time to do the work we were elected to the House of Commons to do.

There is one problem that deserves to be revisited that I would like to see studied in committee. I am talking about the fact that this bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food more discretionary powers.

In fact, if passed as is, Bill C-18 would allow the minister to change various provisions of the bill without having to go through the House. He would not need approval from parliamentarians from all the parties. He could simply do it all by regulation. We see that provision quite often in Conservative bills. Frankly, this provision is a concern for the NDP.

This government has shown us many times that we cannot trust it. Here again, it is asking us to give it carte blanche, to give carte blanche to the minister who was at the helm during the XL Foods crisis, the minster who allowed major cuts at the Food Inspection Agency and who allowed the number of inspectors to be cut. The inspectors' jobs are to ensure the health of Canadians, to ensure that we all have access to high-quality food that is not contaminated. It is under this minister that the lives of hundreds and thousands of Canadians were put at risk during the XL Foods crisis. That caused panic here because the government was unable to guarantee the Food Inspection Agency the necessary resources to allow it to do its job properly.

Here again, with the bill before us, we are being asked to trust a minister who has shown his incompetence more than once. Frankly, this needs to be studied in committee again. We need to hear from experts on this aspect of the bill and various other aspects that are controversial and should be improved. We are not saying that we want this bill to be withdrawn completely or that it should never be passed. We are asking the government to show good faith and agree to work with members of the other parties. We also represent farmers, people who are familiar with the problems addressed in the bill, people who deserve to be heard as well as taken into consideration. They should be reflected in the bill that is passed in the House. If we pass Bill C-18 in its current form, that will not be the case.

Personally, when I travel through my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, no one tells me that ministers in the Conservative government should have more discretionary powers because they trust the government. I never hear that in my riding. Quite honestly, most of the time I hear how anxious people are for 2015 to come, so we can be rid of this government.

Aside from that, I have had the opportunity to meet with people from my riding and from ridings across Quebec and Canada. Canadians are worried about the decisions this government is making. It often makes unilateral decisions that do not leave room for opposition or constructive suggestions from the opposition. We know that our job is not simply to criticize. We also suggest solutions and improvements. That generally happens in committee and in the House when we participate in debates that no other parties participate in. We understand our job as MPs. I think it is unfortunate that the Conservatives take their jobs for granted. They do not feel the need to rise and defend their constituents. We saw that with the debate on Bill C-6, when all we heard was yelling from backbench MPs and the same question repeated over and over by the same hon. member on the other side. I strongly suspect that Bill C-18 will only be debated by New Democrat members who care about protecting Canadians and who want to ensure that we all have access to good quality food.

We are the only party that has proposed a global strategy to address the challenges facing farmers and food safety. No other party in the House has addressed this issue. The NDP's objective is to ensure that we can promote sustainable farming communities, support local agriculture, promote safety and transparency in the food protection system and make healthy food accessible to all Canadians.

That is what we want to accomplish here, and that is what we want to accomplish in trying to improve Bill C-18.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for her speech and commentary.

I have to say that I am sitting here feeling rather bemused, because the current government has castigated the United States of America all week, belittling its action on climate change, but all of a sudden, they are their best friend. It is good to hear them saying goods things about the United States of America again.

I too, like the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, have actually taken the time to look at the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act. Contrary to what the members across the way say, the wording is nowhere vaguely similar. The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act simply gives an exception where participation does not amount to active assistance. Clause 11 in Bill C-6 would basically exempt anyone directing or authorizing the activity or expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions. I am sorry. There is actually no comparison between the two.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the case she has made that it is time for Canada to step up and agree with its colleagues in NATO that we should be taking the high road and should simply enact a law that mirrors the convention.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this triangulated debate, I would like to answer the question the hon. member for Edmonton Centre just asked.

I do not think any of us on the opposition benches who find the language of Bill C-6 objectionable are suggesting that we stop working with our ally and friend, the United States. We are asking merely that our legislation be as strong and committed to the goals of the cluster munitions treaty as other NATO partners and allies. Right now it is the weakest, and I think all of us find it shameful.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing good work, because we often get the impression that the members opposite do not hear us. Thank you for calling them to order so that we can have a constructive debate.

Throughout the evening, my NDP colleagues have been contributing to the debate and asking the government opposite to examine this bill more closely. However, my colleagues were the only ones who spoke tonight. We want the voices of civil society and the various organizations affected to be heard.

We are here to talk about Bill C-6. It makes sense that we are not talking about other subjects that I am passionate about, such as tourism and the need for investments in that area, consumer protection, and the environment and climate change. There are many interesting subjects.

However, we are here to debate Bill C-6. The House is sitting this late in the evening precisely to discuss this issue, namely, the Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The NDP opposes Bill C-6 in its current form on the grounds that it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is supposed to implement. That is really the key element. The Conservatives are going against the spirit of the convention by not agreeing to make the necessary amendments, as proposed by members of civil society, the NDP and the opposition in general. We should be hearing that they will agree.

We attempted to amend the bill at committee, but the Conservatives allowed only one small change. They did not make the necessary changes to the bill. This evening, we are once again trying to amend the bill at report stage.

If the government continues to ignore us and continues to fail to use its speaking time to respond to the points we are raising tonight in the House, obviously no progress will be made and we will get home quite late.

The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and, to be honest, the worst in the world. It clearly undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created.

This is not the first time the Conservatives have humiliated us on the international scene. The memory of the Kyoto protocol, which they up and ditched, is still fresh, as is the memory of the UN Security Council seat that we did not get because they failed to convey how important it was. They have made many mistakes. For example, the Conservatives rushed a whole bunch of free trade agreements through. They care a lot more about the number of agreements than about the quality of those agreements. To us, quality is important because those agreements are here to stay. It is important to do things right so they do not have to be redone and so we do not suffer the consequences.

The NDP collaborated with Canadian and international civil society groups to persuade the government to prohibit the use of cluster bombs by Canadian soldiers. The bill still contains a number of dangerous and useless legislative gaps. Bill C-6 has that in common with many other bills: loopholes you could drive a truck through.

The NDP will continue to put pressure on the Conservatives to amend Bill C-6, and that is why we are sitting so late tonight. We want to ensure that Canada's humanitarian and peaceful reputation is not tarnished by this very weak and mediocre bill.

Cluster bombs eject hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area very quickly. They have devastating effects on civilians that can last several years after the end of a conflict.

What we do now will have consequences for generations to come. As a young MP, that matters to me. My children and grandchildren will be affected. This is important, and we cannot treat this issue lightly.

It is important to understand the importance of our role here and the responsibilities we have for ensuring that generations to come have a better and much more certain future than the one that is facing us right now.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process that led to the drafting of a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process was initiated to take advantage of the success of the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines. The United States, China and Russia did not participate in the process and are continuing to stockpile cluster munitions. In spite of strong opposition from a majority of the participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada was able to negotiate the inclusion of an article in the final text of the convention that expressly allowed for ongoing military interoperability with states that are not parties to the convention, namely article 21.

Bill C-6 is not only about that interoperability article. The main problem actually lies in clause 11, as we know, which proposes a list of very vague exceptions, creating the legal uncertainty I mentioned. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with another country that is not a party to the convention, and to request that they be used by the armed forces of another country.

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign civil society organizations calling for the bill to be amended. As I will explain a little later, those calls are supported by many organizations on the ground. We also worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and we were able to persuade it to expressly prohibit Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions. When you care about our troops, you do not turn your back on them. You are there for them, you defend them and you do not let them put their lives in danger. That is important.

Unfortunately, there are still other flaws. If they are not rectified, Canada’s implementation of its commitment against cluster munitions will be rather superficial. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even be detrimental to the convention and give us a bad reputation on the world stage, in that the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries. We do not want a precedent that taints our reputation. We have paid dearly for that reputation over the years of our history.

In its current form, this bill is the least restrictive of all the laws passed thus far by countries that ratified the convention. That is why I would like to quote the people who support us. Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator of mine action at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He also negotiated the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Mr. Turcotte resigned to protest Canada's attempt to impose a weak implementation bill. That is saying something. Mr. Turcotte is advocating for stronger legislation, and we understand what he is saying.

It is important to say so. Some of my colleagues have already talked about Mr. Turcotte. When a person resigns, they understand that, in life, you have to have principles and you have to stand up for them and defend them. I hope that this will come to fruition. I remember other people who resigned as heads of certain government organizations. That is quite something. It means refusing to support this kind of thing because it betrays the spirit of the law, the mandate that we have given ourselves and the objectives we have set for ourselves. That is noteworthy.

Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, and former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser also support us. We have a lot of support. What we are asking this evening is very simple. We are asking the Conservative government, the Conservative members, the Liberals and everyone to take action and to listen to what we have to say.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the type of debate we have been having here in the House tonight was pretty evident just a minute ago when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness came out of the lobby, yelled out a few insults, and went back inside. There has to be something in the water on that side of the House, and it is not chlorine. I do not know what it is.

The Conservatives have been saying all night that the speeches are the same, but we are talking about Bill C-6. They have to be the same. We would like to be discussing pensions. We would like to be discussing poverty, but we are discussing cluster bombs.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. If some major miracle were to happen, which would have to come from the PMO, and a Conservative were to get up and make a speech on this bill, what questions would he ask the member?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

As we have been saying since the beginning of the debates on Bill C-6, it is clear that this situation is significantly tarnishing Canada's international reputation.

It is like someone giving their word and not keeping it. That is what we are doing if you consider clause 11 of Bill C-6. I must say that I am overcome by the fact that the government is minimizing the impact of these cluster munitions, which, whether the government likes it or not, kill children, women and civilians who have nothing to do with any army or with people involved in the military.

That is what we are talking about this evening. This truly goes to show that when it comes to a convention, applying it in a way that is inconsistent with what we signed on to, makes no sense.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-6.

This is a situation we know all too well in Canada. In order for an international treaty to be enshrined in Canadian law, an implementation act is required, and that is what we have before us tonight.

The issue with countries operating under the dualist model is that the implementation act could be undermined by weaknesses, omissions or even ill will. Unfortunately, we have heard time and time again that this bill is undermined by ill will. The government is deliberately misusing the process whereby international rules are incorporated into Canadian law.

We have already debated this bill, since the Senate introduced a previous version. At the time, the NDP had some concerns about the fact that it originated in the other place. However, I will refrain from launching into a tirade against the legitimacy of legislation that originates in the red chamber.

At first glance, it seems to me that every effort made by the government in terms of international relations tends to turn sour. It seems that the Conservatives could not care less about our relations with the international community.

To hell with other countries if they do not think much of Canada. Before the Conservatives start bragging again about their wide-ranging trade policies, they should ask themselves if other countries will want to trade with a country that behaves in such a cavalier and arrogant way.

Bill C-6 is very important. Unfortunately, the government waited too long before introducing a bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions.

I am not the only one who sees the major flaws in this bill. As it is, without any amendment, the bill would render Canada's signature on the convention null and void, simply because our law would not faithfully reflect the content of this treaty. We would clearly be renouncing our international obligations in front of the whole world.

The international community is aware of the efforts made by countries to enforce international laws and now sees Canada as a country that does not do the bare minimum. Clearly, this bill must be amended in order to make sure that it is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of the convention.

I would like to talk about the convention on cluster munitions, a treaty that has been signed by 118 countries—three-quarters of the UN member states—and ratified by 84 countries. The Ottawa treaty to ban landmines as well as the Dublin and Oslo negotiation processes laid the groundwork for a treaty such as this one to put an end to the horror of cluster munitions.

These weapons are extremely difficult to detect and disarm. They are tiny and often look like small objects that have been left behind in conflict zones. We can imagine the many victims, both adults and children, who survive but end up suffering and living with serious injuries caused by these weapons. It is disgusting to think that people could have conceived or produced these ghastly weapons, that companies could have distributed and sold them, and that countries could have authorized and ordered their use. The fact that countries continue to support their use is even worse.

Fortunately, the international community is trying to put an end to inhumanity. There have been a lot of consultations. The work done at the United Nations bodies in Geneva and Vienna is absolutely crucial and important. We mentioned the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines. The work done every year as part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is also invaluable, and Canada has always played an important role in the work of these organizations.

I mention this because I think it is very important to remember that Canada used to be an undisputed leader on these issues, and today, as I will point out later, a number of international experts are looking at Canada and wondering what is going on with us. Where is the logic behind these absolutely ridiculous policies? Once again, I do not understand the government's logic.

Let us get back to the subject of this bill. Cluster munitions were used for the first time during the Second World War. They were used until recently in countries like Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq. These weapons indiscriminately strike all those who happen to be in their range. The non-explosion rate of these munitions makes them particularly dangerous and horrifying. Thirty per cent of all cluster munitions do not explode when they hit the ground. Therefore, they could explode whenever a civilian gets near them, even years or decades later.

Civilians make up 98% of the victims of these weapons, and 40% of the civilian victims are children. Obviously, this is shocking and appalling. We are not talking here about injuries that last a lifetime; we are not talking about the material losses often inflicted on the poorest families that are already ravaged by war; we are not talking about the destruction of homes or the contamination of land used for agriculture; we are talking about the destruction of families, countries, economies and human lives.

In 2008, Canada signed the convention on cluster munitions. It was only natural to do so, given the fact we have always been in favour of disarmament and of monitoring the use of conventional weapons and considering the humanitarian commitment behind our signature internationally, that is, up until now.

At that point, Canada made a commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, sell, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. It also made a commitment to destroy all cluster munitions in its possession within eight years.

By signing the 2008 convention, Canada also agreed to help victims of cluster munitions and support other signatories to the treaty. It was also to take all the necessary legislative measures to have the text adopted in its domestic law. That is what we expected the bill to do.

The NDP rejoiced when Canada became a party to the convention. However, we see tonight, with much sadness and puzzlement, that the government is choosing to shirk its responsibilities under the treaty.

It is choosing to act that way even though we offered to work with the government and suggest amendments, among other things, so that Canada could implement the convention effectively, as it promised to do in 2008.

Becoming a signatory to a convention is only the first step. Once an agreement has been reached and the convention has been signed, it needs to be implemented, which requires a bill like this one.

The bill we have before us, however, does not meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-6 is roundly criticized by experts as well as by those who believe that children and civilians should not be exposed to such weaponry.

Clause 11 allows Canadian soldiers to engage in operations where cluster munitions are used. We were fully compliant in the case of the Ottawa convention, which prohibits Canadian soldiers from being in theatre with non-signatory states. We were forbidden from participating in joint operations with states that use those weapons. Today, Canada is reversing its position in front of the whole world and agreeing to participate in operations in which cluster munitions are used. The decision is as inexplicable as it is worrisome.

Legitimizing the use of these weapons and the states that use them goes against both the spirit and the letter of the convention. Clause 11 authorizes Canada and a state that is not a party to the convention to use, acquire, possess, import or export cluster munitions. This flies in the face of the convention. The government's intentions are unequivocal, and it has made no attempt to obscure them. It is trying to circumvent a treaty that bans the use of some of the weapons most lethal to civilians around the world.

If we are to play a vital, valued role in promoting international peace, we need to make sure that this treaty meets international requirements when it is enshrined in Canadian law. That role was a Canadian tradition that many Quebeckers were proud to be part of, whether as diplomats or statesmen.

The convention clearly requires that we completely rid ourselves of these weapons and refrain from using them if we are in a conflict zone or theatre of operations where they are being used. That is the commitment we made when we signed this agreement. It is there in black and white.

We can say that we do not have these weapons and that we will destroy them, but as long as we do not embrace this particular notion of not using them at all, we are not meeting our international obligations under this convention.

Numerous people have said as much. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross said that clause 11 was not consistent with the purpose and the object of the convention. To quote them:

[It] would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.

The parliamentary committee also heard from former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who is an international disarmament expert:

It is a pity the current Canadian Government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

Our amendments were specifically designed to change this bill so that it would be in line with such extremely important opinions and comply with international law.

Instead, the Conservatives are hurting Canada's reputation. It is shocking and shameful. I urge them to change their strategy, if only to preserve our international reputation.

Do they care about that?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to join my voice to those of my official opposition colleagues.

We are opposed to Bill C-6 under its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. That is unfortunate. We proposed amendments to the bill at committee stage, but, true to form, the Conservatives allowed just one small change. We are again trying to amend the bill at report stage, but if the government does not agree to further improve the content, then we will have no choice but to oppose it.

In November 2013, the NDP called on the government to amend Bill C-6. According to lawyers, representatives of other countries and groups from civil society, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the new legislation would seriously hinder the implementation of the treaty. The Conservatives' bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions is largely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world. It undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created. These inhumane and cruel weapons must be banned. The Canadian legislation allows Canadian soldiers to continue to use these cluster munitions. It is unbelievable.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to develop a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Landmines. This treaty was very successful and we are very proud of it. I am talking about the treaty to ban landmines. We built on that treaty in order to rid the world of the horrific weapons known as cluster munitions. The convention was signed by 118 countries, which is significant since that represents more than three-quarters of the UN member states. A total of 84 countries ratified it. When the Dublin process and Oslo process negotiations were complete, we implemented a convention that was important in terms of disarmament and ridding the world of these horrific munitions.

The NDP fully supported the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. This bill undermines the convention it is supposed to implement. That is unfortunate. We oppose this bill as it now stands. In committee, we worked hard to improve it with civil society groups. Even if the amendment the Conservatives allowed is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support this bill. At this stage, the best thing to do would be to completely remove clause 11 from the bill, which is what we are proposing.

I would like to quote the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In their opinion, clause 11 would permit:

...activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been criticized by many experts and those who strongly believe in ridding the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other provisions. Clause 11 allows the Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not participate in joint operations with them while they were using those particular weapons.

This bill has a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre when one of our allies is using cluster munitions. That is unacceptable

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and were able to convince it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Unfortunately, there remain flaws in the bill. If they are not corrected, Canada will only be able to superficially honour its commitment to ban cluster munitions. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention internationally, in that the withdrawal options and exemptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

Canada should show more leadership and meet its commitments. The government has shown its lack of vision in other matters as well. In this regard, I will quote Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian prime minister:

It is a pity the [current] Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

I would like to remind the House that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians, innocent people, mostly children. That is why the world wanted to ban these munitions. Why is the government trying to destroy these efforts?

Moreover, in 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of landmines, cluster munitions, and other explosive devices. Children and adults were maimed and killed by these weapons. We have wanted to get rid of cluster munitions for a long time.

The bill was also condemned by Earl Turcotte, the head of the DFAIT delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned a few years later in protest against the Conservative government's watered-down version of the convention. Mr. Turcotte said that the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention on cluster munitions to date.

Why is the government refusing to hear what the experts have to say? It is not the first time we have seen that. It is like déjà vu. On several key issues, the government turns a deaf ear. In this case, though, human lives are at stake, which is why I feel that the government should work constructively to amend the bill.

In an open letter published last year, Mr. Turcotte stated that the bill betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated the treaty in good faith. I want to conclude by quoting from an article by Marc Thibodeau in La Presse on June 15, 2013:

After playing a leading role in the fight against landmines, Canada is now being chastised for not fulfilling its commitments in the current campaign to get rid of cluster munitions.

In the same article, Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, says that there are no logical reasons to explain why Ottawa would act this way. He thinks that “the situation is tarnishing Canada's reputation as a leader on humanitarian issues”.

He really gets at the heart of what is becoming a very palpable reality: Canada's international reputation. We have to stop playing and start acting. We need to take a leadership role so that innocent people are no longer killed. We have a job to do. We can resolve this right now. We are here until midnight and we are trying to use this time to have a proper debate.

As was mentioned earlier, we are the only party taking part in tonight's debate. There is still time to amend the bill and delete clause 11. I am confident that we will be able to do something good with this bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I can speculate about why the change is here, but I am afraid the government has to answer for that. Unfortunately, it has refused to do so. It is not putting up speakers; it is not explaining its rationale.

All I can say, and all I can see, is the advice from experts, who are very concerned about the lack of solid and worthwhile language in Bill C-6.

We can change this. We can fix this. It is not too late. We can go back and work through the legislation and make it what it needs to be, for all of our sakes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative members in this House are not debating tonight, we are certainly getting a lot of points made repeatedly, such as those made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

For my friend from London—Fanshawe, the claim has been made repeatedly in debate this evening that the exact language was used in the anti-landmines law as is used in Bill C-6. That is not correct.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Conservatives have had no speakers. They have had no one stand up to provide anything but an across-the-House volley of interruptions and non sequiturs. I am afraid that does not constitute debate. There should be a give and take. There should be a clear and logical analysis of Bill C-6 and the rationale behind clause 11. From our perspective, it is extremely problematic.

He said that we have been in theatres with those who use objectionable weapons. We are better than that. We signed this Oslo Convention, in 2008. We signed it, I assume in good faith, with the intention of ratifying it, with the intention of showing the world that we could set aside these kinds of weapons. Yet here we are, with clause 11 in the bill, making excuses, undermining, deluding, and not living up to who we are.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that some of what I have heard tonight from the government during this debate makes me very uneasy. Here we are in the safety of Canada, talking about instruments of war, which quite simply are devastating. In some ways, the debate feels surreal.

As a nation, we took a position, in December 2008. We said, along with 113 other countries, that it was time to end the brutal legacy of cluster munitions and to launch a process to prohibit these weapons, to remove them from the face of the earth. They cause unacceptable harm to armed forces personnel and unspeakable harm to civilians. The reason I say this has to do with the impact of these weapons on human beings.

I began by saying how uneasy I felt and how surreal this discussion is, when it is academic, here in the safe comfort of this House, and when members of this House say we have to be prepared to accept the necessary evil of cluster munitions because our American allies have stockpiled them. However, before we rationalize the position taken by the Conservative government in Bill C-6, I think it is essential to understand what cluster munitions are and what they do.

We are talking about an imprecise weapon that is designed to strike a greater surface area than many other conventional weapons by dispersing smaller but still very lethal submunitions. They are scattered around the ground, and these submunitions create an incredibly large footprint. Within that footprint, they kill and injure both military personnel and civilians.

Up to one quarter of these submunitions fail to explode on impact, but that does not make them any less dangerous. In Lebanon, during the 2006-07 conflict, there were at least 555 recorded cluster munitions casualties in Lebanon, of whom 122 were killed and 433 injured. Children made up 24% of the casualties, most of them young boys, and many of them under the age of 18.

These recorded totals do not include up to 175 unconfirmed cluster munition casualties during or shortly after the conflict. The unexploded ordinance continued to kill. For several months after the conflict, people could not go back into their homes because of these failed submunitions. They littered their homes and littered the area. In the longer term, a larger percent of casualties occurred to farmers while they were trying to farm, herd animals, or carry out other livelihood activities.

In addition to the loss of life and the economic damage, cluster munitions exact a high psychosocial and educational cost. Populations suffer psychological trauma long after the initial event.

However, Lebanon is not the only place where these weapons have been used. Cluster munitions are a worldwide generational problem. They have been used in 24 countries in areas, and their use is suspected in at least a dozen more. Cluster munitions have been deployed in Syria, Iraq, Israel, and are thought to have been used in Afghanistan.

Again, the victims are children who are playing outdoors, pedestrians walking down the street, workers pressing olive oil, and even families in their homes. These weapons kill indiscriminately. Casualties and deaths are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands since 2006. We also know that 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded, as a result of land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices.

These are the weapons that pull human beings apart. In response to this, the Norwegian government invited 48 states, as well as the UN and civil society groups, to Oslo, to start a process towards an international ban. At the end of the meeting, 46 governments supported a declaration for a new international treaty, and a ban by 2008.

That declaration stated that a legally binding international instrument would be agreed upon by 2008, and it would “prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians”.

In 2008, Canada signed that convention, and the current government tabled that agreement in the House of Commons, in December 2012. That brings me to the debate tonight.

Canada, at this moment, has the opportunity to show leadership on the world stage by showing a real commitment to the Oslo Convention. Unfortunately, the sticking point revolves around clause 11 of Bill C-6. This clause relates to the issue of interoperability which, as part of the original convention, allows countries like Canada that do not manufacture, stockpile, or use cluster munitions to be in a theatre of war with nations that have not signed the convention, such as China, Russia, and the United States.

Unfortunately, Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowed in the convention. Clause 11 establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. The fear expressed by some who opposed the language in clause 11 was that this article permits direct complicity in the use of banned weapons. Imagine Canada being complicit in the use of banned weapons?

In other words, clause 11 allows Canadian Armed Forces to be in a theatre where cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the landmines treaty. If we were in the theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not be in joint operations with them while they were using those particular armaments.

The bill before us is void in that respect. There is a loophole, which basically says that we can be in joint operations in the theatre where one of our allies is using these munitions. This works against the whole notion and spirit of the convention.

As my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated, experts have expressed reservations. On the other side, members are not hearing; they are not listening. They are not, for all intents and purposes, even participating, except for the odd heckle and outburst.

On this side of the House, we have listened to the experts who have reservations. Dr. Walter Dorn, of the Royal Military College, said:

Who would want Canadians to use cluster munitions, aid and abet, direct or request their use, or conspire with another person to use these indiscriminate weapons? Yet this wording is in the legislation itself to allow the so-called cooperation with a non-party, which we know to be aimed at the possible cooperation with the United States.

As I said, it is against the spirit of the treaty and the letter of the treaty.

Dr. Marc Drolet, of Handicap International, said:

Bill C-6 should be strengthened to ensure that everything possible is done to promote the spirit and achieve the purpose of the Oslo Convention. [...] As currently drafted, the bill could, paradoxically, very well contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than their elimination as intended.

As I said at the outset, cluster munitions are weapons that are designed to tear human beings apart. This Conservative legislation to implement the convention on cluster munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and the worst in the world. It undermines everything that we should be standing to implement.

We are going to push the Conservatives to further amend Bill C-6 and ensure Canada's humanitarian reputation is not tarnished by this weak legislation. Canadians should not ever be complicit in the continued use of these horrific weapons.

We are better than that. This nation is better than that. I implore the government to understand that Canadians want to be seen as those who understand the Oslo Convention, who understand that we have a place, a possibility, an obligation, to make this convention work. It will not be with Bill C-6 and clause 11, but here in this House, through listening and co-operation, we can do it.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He mentioned that the exceptions went too far when it comes to Bill C-6. They are a clear breach of Canada's international obligations. In any case, when we sign a convention and the bill to ratify it is completely inconsistent with the content of that same convention, as it has been pointed out, it is impossible to have any credibility internationally. What does my colleague think about that?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak, for a few moments at least, to Bill C-6.

Let me say how proud I am to be part of a caucus whose members have been prepared to stand up, member after member, and voice their values, their principles, their convictions as they relate to an issue like this which affects people around the world. I am extraordinarily proud to be a member of this caucus.

It has been said before, but let me acknowledge the fact that this is a bill meant to implement or to ratify a treaty called the convention on cluster munitions that was adopted in 2008. Here we are in 2014 and we are just now dealing with a piece of legislation to accomplish that, a piece of legislation, by the way, that was introduced in this House and now has had time allocation restrictions placed upon it.

This is extremely important. It is another treaty in a series of treaties followed along by the international treaty on landmines which is meant to deal with a weapon of war that not only has tremendous impact, death and maiming, at the time of its use, but subsequently as well. We have heard members of this caucus give examples of the problems that arise as a result of not being able to properly clear the fields of these ordnances and the destruction and damage that is caused to civilians, including children. That is what this treaty is all about: to end the use of a weapon like this that has been deemed to be reprehensible.

In fact, as the convention entered into force, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke of “not only the world's collective revulsion at these abhorrent weapons, but also the power of collaboration among governments, civil society and the United Nations to change attitudes and policies on a threat faced by all humankind.”

Subsequently, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said, “These weapons are a relic of the Cold War. They are a legacy that has to be eliminated because they increasingly won't work.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams called the convention “the most important disarmament and humanitarian convention in over a decade.”

The point is, this treaty was adopted by 107 nations around the world, and we are now dealing with a piece of legislation that supposedly implements that treaty.

I want to echo what some of my colleagues have talked about in comparing clause 11 of Bill C-6 with article 21 of the treaty itself. I have looked at this and I want to talk about it for a second. Clause 11 in the bill creates so many exceptions that it goes well beyond article 21 of the treaty and basically completely undercuts the intention of the convention itself.

I will read what article 21 says. It is pretty straightforward:

Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention....

Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention....

It goes on to say:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

In other words, this is the interoperability clause. In other words, the concerns that members opposite have raised, that my goodness if we are at war working with our neighbours to the south, the United States, or other coalition partners, if we do not have the exemptions provided for in clause 11, we might suffer some legal consequences.

What article 21 does is it provides that comfort that, in fact, we commit to the principle and we commit to not allowing domestically the purchase, production or use of these weapons, but that if we are engaged and make our coalition partners aware of our abhorrence to this particular practice, that gives us some safety.

If we go back to the bill, to clause 11, what we will see in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) are the exceptions:

11.(1) Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under...in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bom2t by the armed forces of that state....

(c) acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(2) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition....

(3) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to commit any act referred to....

My point is it is here in black and white what has been said by my colleagues and what has been said by experts who appeared at the foreign affairs committee, that in fact, clause 11 completely undercuts the tenets of the treaty itself.

If the government is going to get on its high horse and it is going to beat its chest about its adherence to the principles of the treaty, then it has to do that. It cannot expect to pass legislation that is contrary to that. That is the point we have been trying to make.

The production and use of these weapons is abhorrent. It has to be stopped. As a country, as a nation, as a participant in this world, we need to take strong action. We need to show leadership. This bill does not do that. That is the point we are trying to make.

Why I would even bother to explain that to a government that has been passing pieces of legislation one after the other that are being challenged and thrown out by the courts, I do not know. I guess I am just a bit naive. I think that if we take the time and if we point out the obvious nature of the flaws, the government will see it.

It is important that this House uphold the tenets of the treaty, the convention on cluster munitions. We need to make sure that the legislation that ratifies it does that very thing. Bill C-6 does not do that, and that is why we are opposed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister across may have been quite busy in recent weeks denying the fact that he hung up on one of the most listened to radio programs in our country, recreating numbers that simply do not reflect reality when it comes to how many government sponsored refugees we have accepted from Syria, and coming up with excuses to reject yet more refugee claimants' health care applications.

However, just to inform the minister, he may want to familiarize himself with clause 11, which permits Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. This is clause 11 in Bill C-6, which is a bill that was put forward by his government. I would turn his passion right back at him and ask him how he, in good conscience, could stand as a minister of the crown and support a piece of legislation that flies in the face of the reputation Canadians demand from our country.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak in opposition to Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I would like to begin today by making it clear that history will note that in this debate, on such a critical issue, we have not seen one government member rise and make a speech in defence of an indefensible bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, a substantial amendment that was made in committee that would remove the ability of Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. However, we have still left far too much in that would weaken Canada's commitment to the cluster munitions treaty.

One of the places that I think is really offensive is that many of our allies have decided that, as an interpretative statement, in interpreting this part of the convention, subclause (c) of the operative section, that we are prohibited from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any activity prohibited by a state party under this convention. Many of our allies have concluded that investing in the production of cluster munitions would offend that section and have specifically taken action to ban investment. Bill C-6 would fail to do that.

We need to also focus on those places where it was so obvious we could have made changes, and refused to do so, to strengthen this legislation to make it fulfill the spirit of the convention.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick corrections, and then a question.

The NDP members have quoted a couple of times now the number of Canadian soldiers who were killed or injured. I forget which year they were referring to. The facts are: IEDs: yes; suicide bombers: yes; cluster munitions: no, none, zero, nada. They should quit saying that. It is just not true.

The member for Repentigny suggested that somehow Canadians had left little Canadian flags on cluster munitions that we used in Bosnia. We did not use cluster munitions in Bosnia, at all. That kind of comment disrespects the soldier who he purports to respect, because it is just not true and it is reprehensible, frankly.

The members quoted the land mine treaty a couple of times. Why is there a clause in the land mine treaty that has the same effect as clause 11 in Bill C-6? Why is it okay in the land mine treaty and it is not okay in Bill C-6?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an important issue on Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The NDP opposes Bill C-6 in its current form on the grounds that it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is supposed to implement. Bills that implement international treaties should not work at cross purposes from the treaty itself.

The NDP attempted to amend the bill at committee, however, the Conservatives only allowed one small change, which would leave its weak support for the treaty in place.

Let us be clear about how serious this issue is and how dangerous cluster munitions are. Cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time and have a devastating impact on civilians that can last many years after the conflict has ended.

In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster bombs and other explosive devices.

Submunitions are very small, often similar in size to a D battery or a tennis ball. Furthermore, 30% remain unexploded and become, in fact, landmines. A single cluster bomb holds hundreds of submunitions, enough to cover an area the size of two to four football fields.

As members can see, these incredibly small devices, the size of a tennis ball, can project death and danger as far as four football fields away.

Canada participated actively in what was known as the “Oslo process” to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. There are 113 countries who have signed the convention and 84 have ratified.

The U.S., China and Russia did not participate in the process, and continue to have stockpiles of cluster munitions. Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article which would explicitly allow for continued military interoperability with non-party status, article 21.

Earl Turcotte was the former senior coordinator for Mine Action at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are two very left-wing organizations. He was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate this convention. He also negotiated the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, the Ottawa convention. It is significant therefore that Mr. Turcotte resigned as a result of Canada's attempting to implement weak legislation.

Mr. Turcotte joined many Canadians and our party in advocating for stronger legislation. He said:

—the proposed...legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

Imagine that: Canada's bill to implement the international treaty is the worst of any country and an epic failure in so many ways.

Of course, Bill C-6 goes beyond interoperability. The main issue is actually clause 11 and its vague list of exceptions. According to the Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, clause 11 would authorize activities that would undermine the purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.

In its original form, the clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, process or transport cluster munitions whenever they were acting in conjunction with another country that was not a member of the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported Canadian and international civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely with the government in public and thorough direct dialogue to encourage improvements to the legislation. We were successful in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Clause 11 of Bill C-6 would go far beyond the language of article 21, and anyone from the international committee of the Red Cross to the Canadian responsible for drafting article 21 agrees on that. The Conservatives are alone in thinking that clause 11 is in line with the convention. The NDP amendment would have replaced this loophole language with an actual text of the convention. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions would be superficial at best.

We want to protect our soldiers from cluster munitions, to ensure that they are neither the users nor the victims. That objective is only possible if there is a full commitment by the entire country to the letter and the spirit of the treaty banning these weapons.

Until then, the convention allows interoperability. There is therefore no reason to use the overly broad wording proposed in Bill C-6.

Let me also cite the former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser. He said, “It is a pity the current Canadian Government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive”.

Indeed, Bill C-6 may even damage the convention as a whole by establishing an international precedent for opt-outs and exemptions. We need some good amendments to the bill to gain our support and the support of the international community.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what we have been doing here for the last two and a half hours if not actually debating back and forth and refuting points, one side to the other. That is fine. That is what is called debate. No one is condoning the use of cluster munitions. That is why we got rid of ours. We are in the process of getting rid of the last ones. That is why we do not allow any Canadian to use them, transport them, call for them, any of those things members intimate we are still doing.

My colleague brought up the landmine treaty. It was a good treaty that Canada signed and ratified. The landmine treaty has clauses that are the same as clause 11 in Bill C-6 for the same reason. We operate with allies, principally the Americans who have reasons of their own. We cannot dictate to the U.S. what its reasons and policies are, but it is reality. It is the reality Americans deal with and it is the reality we deal with, working with the Americans as we do on pretty much every single mission. It is no different than the landmine treaty.

One of the reasons we are insisting on clause 11 is because it is common sense and it is reality. That does not mean we condone the use of the weapons at all, but it is just reality.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start into my speech, I would like to recount a first-hand account on the use of cluster munitions.

I used cluster bombs on Iraqi forces in 1991. To this day, they are still killing the people we went to liberate. I have personal experience with these weapons. Fighting alongside Canada’s troops, I used cluster munitions in 1991 against Iraqi forces during the liberation of Kuwait. The target was a set of slit trenches. I released the two CBU-87s bombs, each containing hundreds of smaller “submunitions,” from a steep dive. I can still see the two huge doughnut-shaped “footprints” of the submunition explosions forming, slightly overlapping. With a series of flashes, the area around the target disappeared into dust and smoke, hiding the trenches and the last of the explosions from view. The blast area was equivalent to several soccer fields. I remember thinking it must have been hell on Earth to have been in the trench. All four of us in the formation were struck by the effect. Afterwards, someone wrote two words in the “remarks” column in the sheet authorizing the mission: “Nasty weapon.” But we didn’t know how nasty. We knew that some of the submunitions would not detonate, and that that would make it difficult for the enemy to operate in that area. But I had no idea that there would be nearly 200 casualties suffered by Kuwaitis — the people we were fighting to liberate — over the next 15 years. Or that two decades later, despite massive clearance efforts, unexploded submunitions would still be found. Or that by far the greatest proportion of recorded cluster munition casualties are civilian, many of them children.

That really sums up why we need to be passing this treaty and why we need to be ratifying it.

Also, Canada has a leading role to play in this. Sadly, the government is missing the opportunity by including things like clause 11 and working in the loopholes in the original convention that would allow for laggards to continue to operate and use these munitions and for Canada to stand idly by.

As we have heard from other speakers this evening, New Democrats fully supported the creation of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. That treaty or convention has been signed by 113 countries and has been ratified by 84. Supposedly, this bill is meant to represent Canada's ratification of the convention, but this bill undermines that convention. With this bill the government is trying to introduce a major loophole that will make Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions superficial at best.

The problem is that Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Then, in developing this legislation, the government added clause 11, which establishes an extremely broad list of exemptions. This clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, and transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention and, worse still, to request the use of cluster munitions by other countries.

The International Committee of the Red Cross commented about this particular part of the legislation saying that section 11:

...could permit activities that undermine the object and purpose of the convention and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than bringing about their elimination.

The NDP members fought hard at committee to make changes to this clause and other sections of the bill, but were only successful in getting the Conservatives to formerly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. However, we will take every little win on this kind of legislation that would limit the contact that our soldiers might come into with respect to cluster munitions and other weapons that we find reprehensible and heinous to use.

Like so many times before, the government has been unwilling to listen to many opposition amendments simply because the ideas did not come from it. This is a government that refused to correct grammar in another bill because it came from the opposition, forcing the change to be made at the Senate and then brought back here, wasting all of our valuable time and energy.

Of course other loopholes remain. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions would be superficial at best. In fact, it may even damage the convention as a whole by establishing an international precedent for opting out and exemption. The legislation to implement the convention on cluster munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world, so we are not leading, we are trailing behind other countries in this area.

As a couple of my colleagues have mentioned, Earl Turcotte, a former senior coordinator from mine action at DFAIT, said about Bill C-6:

...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

I wonder if maybe that quote is why no member of the government is willing to get up and defend this legislation. Then we would have the opportunity to ask them questions about what he said about how this legislation would not meet our obligations under international and humanitarian law and that it would fail to protect civilians in war-torn countries.

All night long it has been New Democrats getting up and the Conservatives making snide remarks and talking about our ideals and making fun of pacifism and peacekeeping, which was a Canadian invention. The incredulous comments just continue without abating. The Conservatives are not willing to get up and defend this legislation. It is really an impressive thing when a government is not willing to stand up and defend its own decisions.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to return to the heart of the issue before us tonight, namely Bill C-6, and ask my colleague to comment on the position of Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada. He had this to say about the bill:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again, but from our reading, this legislation falls well short of those standards.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a large area—one approximately the size of a football field, or 100 square metres—in a very short period of time. They have a devastating impact on civilians, and that impact can last many years after a conflict has ended.

How many countries have had to have cleanup operations after a conflict? Unfortunately, not everything can be removed. Some cluster munitions remain, and it is usually civilians who pay the price. Children are often drawn to the submunitions, which are about the size of a golf ball, cylindrical and eye-catching. Many children pay the price, often with their life.

We know how devastating and inconspicuous these landmines can be for the civilian population. Unfortunately, they are extremely difficult to detect. They can be as small as a golf ball, and they are often very difficult to defuse. Thirty per cent of these unexploded submunitions become the equivalent of landmines.

They have inflicted terrible damage during conflicts around the world. They have mutilated and killed children and adults. Fully 98% of all cluster bomb casualties have been civilians.

Is this the kind of international leadership that Canada should take with respect to landmines and cluster bombs? Not at all. Canadians took a stand on this issue long ago, but in this case, the Conservatives are going against what Canadians want.

Canada participated actively in the Oslo process that led to the creation of a convention to ban cluster bombs. People have been wanting to get rid of these weapons for a very long time. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions is widely known as the weakest position of all of the countries that ratified the convention and passed legislation on the issue. It goes against the spirit of the convention.

As written, this bill is less binding than any other law passed by the countries that ratified the convention. One hundred and thirteen countries signed the convention and 84 have ratified it to date. Once again, instead of showing leadership, the Conservative government is bringing up the rear and seems bent on undermining the impact of the convention.

Earl Turcotte, former senior program coordinater for mine action at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, led the Canadian delegation that negotiated this convention. Here is what Mr. Turcotte said about the government's bill:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

There are several loopholes in this bill, and if they are not closed, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will be superficial at best. Indeed, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it may even work against the convention on an international level, as Earl Turcotte warned.

However, we should not be surprised by the direction that the Conservatives are taking in terms of arms control when we consider their general reluctance to take action on this file. In fact, they refused to sign the UN arms trade treaty, which was signed by all our NATO allies, and it relaxed restrictions on arms exports. This attitude is contrary to the will and values of Canadians.

The bill was criticized by many experts and by those who firmly believe that we must rid the world of cluster munitions. Criticism was mainly levelled at clause 11. This clause authorizes the Canadian Forces to be present in a theatre of operations where cluster munitions are used.

This flies in the face of what we did in the case of the Ottawa treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. It stipulated that if we were to find ourselves in a theatre of operations alongside any other country that had not signed the Ottawa treaty, we could not participate in combined operations with the troops of that country if they were using such weapons.

This bill has a flaw, a loophole, that basically says that we can be in a theatre of operations when one of our allies is using these munitions. That is completely unacceptable, and it goes against the spirit of the convention.

The government's objective is not to ratify or implement this convention. With the results we see, its objective is to undermine or weaken the convention. It also undermines Canada' role as a world leader and our commitment to ban this terrible weapon.

In the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP offered its support to Canadian and foreign civilian organizations that were calling for this bill to be amended. We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government, and we managed to persuade it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. In concrete terms, that means that Canadian soldiers may not directly use this type of weapon but that they may take part in operations and be on the ground where those weapons have been used.

How can the government prohibit their direct use by the Canadian Forces, on the one hand, and let our forces take part in joint operations with partners who use this kind of weapon, on the other? Canada expressly prohibited the involvement of its armed forces in the case of anti-personnel mines. We could therefore implement the same kind of prohibition for this type of weapon. This is a 180-degree change from the position we held on anti-personnel mines.

If the government does not decide to withdraw clause 11 with the amendment at report stage, we will unfortunately be forced to vote against the bill. That would be unfortunate, but we would have no choice.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a strange atmosphere in which to start my speech on Bill C-6 but I will jump right into it anyway. I first want to preface my remarks by reassuring my colleagues opposite that I have a clear understanding of the issue here and that I wrote my speech myself.

I hope that this will not lead my colleagues opposite, such as the member for Ottawa—Orléans, to make disrespectful remarks. I hope I will not hear any more such comments when I finish my speech. Frankly, I thought that debates in the House of Commons were supposed to be more courteous. I find such comments to be far beneath an experienced member like him, who has been in the House for years and who once held the position of Speaker.

In any case, let me get back to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This is a very important debate in the House, and that is why the NDP wants to take the time to debate the bill properly.

I have heard many comments from the Conservative backbenchers, but not one member has risen to actively participate in this debate in the House. That is a terrible shame. I guess they think they have done enough to earn their salaries.

The NDP thinks it is important to be the voice of the people who we represent and who sent us to the House to debate issues that are important to them, including international policy issues. A Conservative member said that he had made a speech just a few days ago. That is extraordinary. One speech in all the time that was allocated to members of the governing party. That really is unfortunate.

Bill C-6 seeks to finally implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This is an issue that has been the subject of international debate for many years now. The convention in question is the result of negotiations between over 100 countries as part of the Oslo process, which came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Landmines.

Although Canada became one of the 113 signatories to the convention on December 3, 2008, the convention has yet to be ratified by our Parliament. This is what Bill C-6 is attempting to do, in its clumsy way. Cluster munitions have a devastating and direct impact on civilian populations, as the NDP has already discussed at length.

The Conservatives have told us repeatedly that we need these weapons to defend our military personnel during international operations. They seem to forget that 98% of the time, victims of cluster munitions are civilians. Not only are they civilians, but many victims are children. About 30% of submunitions fail to explode and remain on the ground. Children are attracted to these small, sometimes brightly coloured objects and pick them up. Submunitions then function just like landmines.

Canada has clearly stated its opposition to the use of landmines. However, the Conservative government will not hear of prohibiting the use of cluster munitions, which end up acting just like landmines. Unexploded submunitions remain on the ground for years. They keep on claiming victims long after the fighting is over.

Ratifying this convention is very important to Canada. People I talk to are concerned about these types of issues, and they would like to see Canada take a leadership position on the world stage.

Unfortunately, once again the Conservatives are dropping the ball. The bill in its current form does not at all live up to the mission of the convention that was negotiated.

In fact, the bill presented to us by the Conservatives contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. It is very contradictory, and that is what we are trying to shed light on in this debate, which apparently is too long for the Conservatives, but is essential for the NDP. This is a complex issue. We must take our time with it. We must give this bill the time it deserves. It has already gone through committee. The NDP worked with the government to try to improve the bill. However, there is still work to be done.

In its current form, Bill C-6 is still today being criticized by many experts and international players as the weakest and worst bill in the world for ratifying the convention on cluster munitions. There is nothing to be proud of—quite the contrary.

The major problem is that the Conservatives did everything to ensure that this bill included a lot of legal loopholes, which seem unnecessary and dangerous to us. That is what the NDP focused its efforts on in committee and continues to focus on.

We think the main flaw in the bill is clause 11, which is still included. That clause would allow Canadian soldiers to acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a party to the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. Clearly, the government made only half an effort to control the use of these weapons. We think that is not enough.

We nevertheless managed to make one amendment to the bill at committee stage. The NDP's efforts were rewarded. The government finally admitted that it would not necessarily be a good idea to expressly allow Canadian soldiers to use cluster munitions. However, it is a rather small victory considering all the work that remains to be done.

If no further changes are made to the bill at the stage it has reached, although amendments could still be made, the bill could undermine the international implementation of the convention by creating dangerous precedents that other countries could rely on. The exemptions currently found in the bill could be invoked by other countries that want to justify keeping or even using the weapons in their arsenals. That is what most of the international community and the NDP are trying to avoid. Unfortunately, once again, Canada was the black sheep and tried to do everything it could to undermine the essence of the convention. It is really too bad, but we still can do the right thing, even if that is not the Conservatives' way.

This is not the first time that they have watered down the principles and values dear to Canadians on the international stage. I could talk about environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto protocol, which are not being honoured. An even more striking example is the 2009 scandal that broke over the transfer of Afghan detainees. We learned that in 2006-07, the Conservative government had expressly approved the transfer of Afghan detainees to prisons where there was a significant risk that they would be tortured.

Canada is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Before the arrival of the Conservative government, we were strongly opposed to torture. For various reasons, the Conservatives allowed violations of the values so dear to Canadians and permitted the transfer of Afghan detainees to prisons where they were tortured.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not care about the values and principles that matter to Canadians. Earlier, I heard them going on about how Canada is not a pacifist country. That is unbelievable. They need a history lesson. I will not give it to them now, since I do not think they would listen, which is too bad. Regardless, as I just showed, the Conservatives are once again flouting the values and principles that matter to Canadians.

We are not finished. The NDP will continue to work with the government to amend the bill to ensure that it complies with the convention that has been negotiated and ratified by more than 80 countries so far. We simply need to remove clause 11. That is what we are asking for. I hope that the government will finally listen.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is here tonight to discuss Bill C-6, a bill of some import. We would like to discuss it to impress upon the members opposite that some of its clauses are contradictory. We wish to continue discussing it.

I would like for cooler heads to prevail and for members to stop getting riled up and totally distorting the message we wish to send Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side talk about wanting to hear speeches from this side. We did give speeches. Last time, I gave one and a number of other members gave them as well. The opposition has complained about not having enough time to speak. Well, we are giving them five or six hours, so they can speak their little hearts out.

We can go back and forth like this, and that is great, I have no problem with that. I want to pick up on something the member said about how a minority of people elected this government to a majority government. That is true, 62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative in the last election, 72% did not vote NDP, 82% did not vote Liberal, and 95%, plus or minus, did not vote Green or Bloc.

Of the majority governments we have had in Canada, five in our entire history had been elected with more than 50% of the popular vote. Trudeau never had one. Chrétien never had one. Let us put that part aside.

Getting back to the issue of Bill C-6, the suggestion that this bill allows us to use, produce, acquire, transfer, or incite and encourage others to use cluster munitions is simply false. That is just not true. I wish the hon. member would not intimate that.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a comment. I find it unfortunate that a guillotine has been imposed to limit the time we have to speak to this bill. Is it because they do not want to work with us or for us to ask them questions? I find that truly regrettable. Who do people currently see discussing this bill on CPAC? The NDP. The other parties ask us questions.

I think it is important today to discuss the risks to which Canada is exposing its military personnel and millions of civilians around the world by passing Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Although this bill is supposed to support an international effort to get rid of an atrocious weapon, the bill that has been put before us could do precisely the opposite.

I will therefore speak to what the bill does, what it does not do and the consequences it would have. I am putting myself in the shoes of the people in the countries that receive these bombs that kill children or injure them for life. This is really disastrous.

Speaking of consequences, what happens when a cluster bomb explodes?

In Canada, we are lucky to live in peace, but we must not believe that we will never go through war. Other democracies before us have been through war. Just imagine for a moment what civilians go through during conflicts, which, by the way, rarely serve their interests.

As my colleagues said earlier, a bomb, not unlike the leaflet propaganda bombs that were used in days gone by, is dropped. However, instead of paper, hundreds of bomblets or submunitions no bigger than a D battery spread out over a more or less accurate target such as a landing strip or an armoured vehicle. It is said that cluster munitions are cheaper because they cover more territory in less time. In time, people are injured and die. There is therefore no need to send more. After the initial wave of explosions, roughly 30% of the unexploded submunitions remain and become de facto landmines that are still effective decades later. Think about this: when these bombs are dropped on a country, the child that might end up playing with them is not even born yet. He will be disabled for life. Civilians account for 98% of victims of cluster munitions. Half of them are children who mistake the colourful submunitions for a toy.

Would we want our children to mistake a bomblet for a toy? That is why I think we can never predict exactly what will happen once a cluster munition is dropped. All we know is that they tear flesh, break hearts and destroy communities with sadness.

I am taking the time to remind everyone what these weapons do because the Conservative government does not seem to understand. Officially, judging by its name, the bill should enable the implementation of the convention on cluster munitions.

Let us take a look at what this bill does and what it does not do.

According to the text of the convention signed by Canada on December 3, 2008, in Oslo:

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:

a) To use anti-personnel mines;

b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Does the bill that should, above all, fulfill these obligations to the international community pass the test?

According to Earl Turcotte, the former coordinator of mine action at DFAIT and the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, the answer is no. Mr. Turcotte said:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

I am not the one who said that; it was Earl Turcotte. He is the fellow who was hired to sign a real convention, one that was really binding on arms manufacturers. He is the fellow Canada sent to help bring peace to the world, which should be our objective as a pacifist country.

We therefore see here what this bill does not do. What does it do, then, if it does not fulfill the primary reason for its existence? To understand what the bill does, we have to look at a process that is not without interest. It is all proceeding as if the Conservative government had thrown a bomblet into the treaty negotiations.

The people in charge of the negotiations for Canada had to bargain hard to have article 26 of the convention, on the interoperability of the signatory countries, included. Essentially, because China, Russia and the United States refuse to sign, it would be hard not to do business with them, is that not so? The people in place at the time of the negotiations succeeded in having that article accepted for Canada, but they are surprised to see, today, that the spirit of the convention is undermined by clause 11 of the bill introduced to address article 26, which Canada requested.

The bomblet that is clause 11 permits Canadian troops to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with another country that is not a party to the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by the armed forces of another country. We will be able to say that we do not make them, but our troops are going to be transporting them.

The Conservative government has thus destroyed the spirit of the convention for good. Flesh will be ripped apart, hearts will be broken and communities will be torn by grief. I would have liked to see a little more leadership on the part of this government. I would have liked our colleagues across the aisle to make speeches, and I would have liked to be able to ask them questions and get more information. I expected a lot more leadership. I am certain that the people of Joliette, whom I represent, have had enough of learning that under the Conservatives, Canada has withdrawn from important international treaties like the Kyoto protocol, which people talk to me about when I go door to door, and is going so far as to sabotage peace efforts at the international level.

When the Conservatives behave in this manner, they show the entire world their true colours, colours that we do not share. On behalf of Joliette and all of Canada, I would like to send this message to the rest of the world: those are not our colours. They are the colours of a minority that obtained a majority in the House of Commons and, for that reason, that minority believes that it is leading on behalf of the majority. Let us hope that the government will agree to do the right thing by amending its bill at third reading. In my opinion, that is the only thing to do for Canada, for its international reputation and for the civilian victims in countries at war.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are having too much fun here tonight, in a manner.

This is not about backpacking around Europe with a flag on one's back. I think the people we represent would not be very proud if we allowed Canadian soldiers to die on the battlefield because we refused help from an ally because we did not like something they were doing. I know how my constituents would feel about that and how the people I know in uniform would feel about that.

I want to take my colleague up on something he said. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to me that he was suggesting that somehow the way Bill C-6 is written is permitting Canadians to use cluster munitions. Of course, it is exactly the opposite. We do not use, possess, store, or permit the use by Canadian Forces of cluster munitions ever, anywhere, any time. I would like him to clarify that. I hope he did not suggest that. If he did, I would ask him to clarify that, because it is simply not the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I am always pleased to speak about foreign affairs issues.

As federal legislators, we often deal with issues that do not always have a direct impact on our constituents. Like many of my colleagues, I am sure, I have the honour of representing a riding where people are very concerned about what is happening with regard to different issues and the way Canada works on the international stage. Even though these issues do not affect them directly, the reputation that Canada has and the way we work are still very important to them. That is the main reason why I am rising today.

I have been listening to this evening's debate, and one of the arguments the Conservative government is using is that it cannot guarantee that the Americans will not use cluster munitions given that they have not signed on to this convention. That is not the issue. To say that we could never stop them—and that there is therefore no problem having a bill ratify a convention, even if the bill is full of flaws that will undermine that same convention—is to miss the point.

The point is to show leadership on the world stage. That is, or I should say was—past tense—Canada's reputation on the world stage. Unfortunately, that is a problem with the Conservative government. We are hearing that again in the arguments this evening. They are saying that it is idealistic and there is nothing they can do about it. That is an excuse for not seeing things through and having a more complete bill that would be supported by the various stakeholders we heard in committee.

There is a term for that in international relations. It is called the tragedy of the commons. The example often used to illustrate the tragedy of the commons in international relations is the environment. If we look at environmental issues, when the different players negotiate on the world stage, they often say that they do not want to make efforts to reduce greenhouse gases because developing countries such as China, for example, will not adhere to the same restrictions that we do and this will put us at a competitive disadvantage. At the end of the day, if we always fall back on those arguments, then that is the tragedy of the commons. In other words, no one does anything.

That is precisely the problem with this bill and with the Conservative government's arguments. The United States is a big and powerful country and we are allies. No one is saying that we will stop working with the U.S. when the government ratifies the convention and working sometimes with the U.S. in military interventions. That being said, that does not stop us from seeing things through and truly supporting what is in the convention with a more complete bill.

I will elaborate a bit for those who may not have followed the entire debate. We are talking about the famous clause 11, which has come up often in the debate. A number of my colleagues have talked about it. Clause 11 would allow Canadian soldiers to use these munitions even though we signed the convention on cluster munitions. If our soldiers were on a mission with countries that have not ratified the convention, we would refer to the concept of interoperability.

It was at Canada's insistence that this concept was included in the convention despite opposition from several countries that participated in the negotiations. This concept is a little strange and very contradictory. One of my colleagues talked about contradiction earlier.This is an extremely important term. In principle, Canada sits around a table and says that it agrees with principles and that it wants to ratify a convention. Then the government comes back to the House of Commons with a bill that puts all this in place and makes our laws conform to the undertakings of this international agreement. However, we cannot really support these principles.

If we took this matter seriously, the bill would instead state that if we were to participate in a military mission with allies such as the Americans, who continue to use these weapons, the Americans could do whatever they wanted, but we would prohibit the use of these weapons by Canadian soldiers. In that way, we would fully honour the principles set out in this convention.

Unfortunately, that is not what this bill proposes, and that is what we are speaking out against. The members opposite do not seem to understand that.

For example, I have listened to my colleague from Ottawa Centre ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs many questions about the arms trade treaty, among other things. The minister talks about not wanting to punish so-called law-abiding citizens, as though we were debating the long gun registry when we are talking about an international treaty. It is really interesting, because we realize that the government's commitment to our obligations is dwindling, and this bill is an unfortunate example of that.

I listened to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta talk about a time when Americans felt safe and comfortable when they put a Canadian flag on their backpack and travelled in certain regions and countries because of the respect the international community had for Canada. I found that interesting.

All is not lost, but I dare say we can do better. That is what we are asking of the government today, as we did in committee. This afternoon the minister repeatedly said that an amendment had been accepted; however, the basic issue has not been corrected. That is why we cannot support this bill.

That is very disappointing because Canada built a reputation for itself through hard work and compromise, and that reputation brought together various countries that were not always on the same wavelength. Now, instead of continuing with that same work, Canada is taking a very strong stand. That is important, but the problem is that Canada is not standing firm on the right things. We need to take a firm stand by showing leadership and initiative, not by being closed-minded.

In other words, the Conservatives show up in the House, raise their hands and say this is too idealistic. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton Centre say that it is like Alice in Wonderland. For many Canadians—in fact, the vast majority—showing leadership on the international stage is not idealistic; it is part of our Canadian identity.

Showing leadership means leading by example. Sometimes, that means making difficult decisions and working with allies who do not work the way we do. It also means, as my colleague said, that we may sometimes have to put some of our soldiers in a difficult position, knowing that their American counterparts are using weapons we prohibit.

However, I think that the people we represent, the international community and our military personnel would be very proud to see us take a firm stand and deliver on the commitments made during negotiations with other countries.

To bring this full circle, I would like to come back to the idea of the tragedy of the commons, or waiting for others to act, which unfortunately is far too often the case on the international stage. Countries are often too afraid to be at the forefront, making difficult decisions and what could be seen as forward-thinking commitments. That is not how Canada acted in the past, and that is not how it should be acting today.

We hope that the government will come to its senses as a result of the speeches that have been made today. When we debated this bill after it was introduced, the media and stakeholders like the Red Cross raised the same concerns as the NDP.

It has to be serious, because the Red Cross generally stays out of this kind of political debate. That speaks volumes.

I know that my time is up, but I think that I got our idea across. I hope that this will enlighten some government members.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to stand in the House to join my colleagues in debating the bill. I am deeply troubled that the government moved to limit debate on the bill. I am deeply troubled that apart from some questions which have been useful, I am not seeing colleagues in the Conservative Party rising to speak to this. If it is so wise to blow a cannon-ball through this treaty, then those members should stand and defend why they should do that.

Bill C-6 allegedly is an act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, but absent the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has brought forward, it will not be a bill to ban the use of cluster munitions. I will speak to that.

As my colleagues have spoken to, in order for Canada to ratify an international convention, the government of the day must table a bill in the House to enact legislation which brings into force in this country the terms of the treaty. As has been mentioned, Canada actually signed this treaty in 2008, and has waited until now to bring a final conclusion to the legislation that it has brought forward.

It is regrettable that our country, unlike Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and most of the European nations, has chosen not to take the treaty and enact it in legislation. Conservatives have taken this treaty and they have blown a cannon-ball through it. Canada has made a choice. Canada has signed the treaty, and it could choose not to ratify the treaty.

We heard questions today asking about our allies. The only ally that Conservatives have talked about is the United States. The whole point of the treaty was to deter nations from continuing to produce and use cluster munitions. What possible excuse can there be, if we only want to sort of ratify the treaty because we like to hang out with countries that do not respect the treaty? I do not think that is much of an incentive, to those who have not yet signed or ratified, to do the proper thing.

What is the significance of the treaty? What are cluster bombs? We have talked a lot about that tonight. These are explosive weapons that release many smaller submunitions. What is particularly dangerous about these—as if they do not cause enough damage and harm and maiming of families and children in the course of a war—is that, like landmines, many are left behind unexploded. Apparently they are very brightly coloured. They are very attractive to children, and a lot of children become maimed.

There has been a lot of talk in the House of late about how much we care about the plight of families suffering through this debacle in Syria. Let me share what has gone on in Syria with cluster bombs. The Syrian army, in Aleppo, has been issuing cluster bombs. What has happened is that a little boy of seven, shaking like a leaf, is seen moaning, with lacerations to his abdomen and legs. Three-year-old brother Nizar's body was ready for burial. Six-year old Mustafa Ali was lying in a bed with shrapnel injuries to his head, neck, and shoulders. There was a nine-year-old boy, with a nasty shrapnel injury to his left leg. These stories go on and on. This is what these weapons do. They are reprehensible.

To the credit of the nations around the world, at one time also including our nation, in 2008, they agreed to come together and draft and implement a convention through a treaty to ban the use of these reprehensible weapons.

Who supports its ratification in whole? The Secretary General of the United Nations supports it. He has expressed increasing concern about the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons, particularly when used in densely populated areas. The International Committee of the Red Cross has spoken out with great concern regarding the proposed legislation by the Canadian government to provide this major exemption. There are others: the British Action on Armed Violence, the International Network on Explosive Weapons, and Amnesty International.

Who has opposed the cluster bombs treaty? Well, it is the nations who have been producing or stockpiling significant quantities of cluster munitions. Those are the ones who are opposed to the convention and have not stepped forward either to sign or ratify it, and they include China, Russia, and the United States, reprehensibly.

In response to the remonstrations by the U.S., Canada and this group of nations have brought forward this treaty. However, now, Canada is introducing a loophole. A number of the parties that I have mentioned are concerned about Canada's move. They are suggesting that this move by Canada to include clause 11 may end up dismantling the effect of this treaty.

Who has criticized Bill C-6?

My colleagues have mentioned the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, and I will read what he has to say:

In a rare public attack, the former prime minister has lashed out at Canada for what he says is “a lack of commitment to an international treaty to ban deadly cluster munitions”. He has accused the current government of departing from Canada's traditional international leadership, and said, “Canada used to be in the forefront internationally in leading the world in good directions”. He then said that Canada cannot claim to have banned cluster bombs when it proposes to allow its military to help others to use the weapons.

That is a good point.

A second party who has spoken very strongly against Bill C-6 is one who should be very worrisome to Canadians, and that is Earl Turcotte.

Who is Earl Turcotte? He was the senior coordinator for the Conservative government's Department of Foreign Affairs in negotiating the treaty. He led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the convention. He resigned, given the Conservative government's position on this section, which essentially blows a cannon-ball through the convention.

I do not think I have time to mention all that Mr. Turcotte has said, but I can assure members that he has been very strong in his admonitions. He said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention..”. He has called for the bill to be strengthened. He said that, “The innocent victims of cluster munitions deserve nothing less”. I tend to agree.

The Red Cross has said clearly that if clause 11 stands in the bill at passage, it could have the effect of undermining the entire treaty. The Government of Norway has also very strongly spoken against the bill.

Concerns have been expressed that unless clause 11, this wide exemption, is removed from Bill C-6, it could put Canadian Forces at risk. Yet, when we read the details of the bill, it is very hard to argue that.

I look forward to one of those members standing in this place tonight and giving us their argument on why this provision is needed in the treaty. No other nation who has ratified the convention has included this provision. Canada did not argue for this provision to be in the treaty. It is highly unusual for a nation that has signed and shown intent to ratify, to add a provision that would essentially undermine the treaty itself.

The treaty already allows for interoperability, so why do we need this additional provision? Surely it should be the obligation of our country, when we get into the fields of war, to look very closely at what our partners in those activities are doing.

What could be an appropriate action by Canada? Well, it would be the same as all of the others who have ratified this convention, which is to stand up and say that one shall not use cluster munitions.

The case that Canadian Forces could be at risk simply by the fact that they go into the field of war with a country such as the United States that still has a stockpile of the munitions, I do not believe is a sound argument. I have yet to see that argument.

If we are in the field of war with a country and it is using those cluster bombs, then shame on us. We should not be participating in that activity. We have signed on to this treaty, and we are professing that we are going to ratify it, which is supposed to do away with the use of these cluster bombs.

I fully support the NDP amendments, which would strike clause 11. That would then bring Canada in line with all of the other reputable nations of the world that have signed and ratified the treaty.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to point out that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, has an enormous number of weaknesses. Today, in 2014, no one can really be unaware of all the damage and deaths caused by cluster munitions.

These days, it is children who are particularly the victims, and they will continue to be for years to come. It is therefore high time to take the necessary action to put an end to cluster munitions.

My colleague said that clause 11 presented a real problem in that it is contradictory. Could he pursue that line of thought further?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

This is the 77th or 78th use of time allocation by the government. Time allocation basically shuts down debate. The Conservatives do not want debate to happen in this House.

On this side of the House, the NDP is fully prepared to debate this bill, but there are no Conservatives getting up to speak to this very important bill that concerns Canada's reputation around the world. Yet speaker after speaker, NDP members are willing to debate in this House that we can actually repair some of the damage that has been done to our reputation over the last seven years by the government.

Before I get to the bill, which is an act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, I must say that Canada had a great reputation around the world. We were viewed as peacemakers. We were viewed as a country that brought countries together. There was an opportunity for us to do that with this particular bill.

As the member pointed out, the Conservatives should not bring a bill into the House while crossing their fingers behind their backs. The Conservatives seem to be doing that not only with this bill, but with many bills. The Conservatives have been slapped by the Supreme Court a number of times in the past couple of years when it comes to the bills they are bringing forward in this House, as to whether they are actually constitutional and whether they respect our charter.

The Conservatives have their fingers crossed behind their backs, hoping nobody will notice it, but the NDP will ensure that Canadians know that the Conservatives are missing an opportunity to present Canada to the world at the level we were many years ago when we were respected around the world.

In the 40 or 50 years that the elections have been held for the Security Council, Canada has always rotated and had a seat on the Security Council. However, under this government, it is the first time we do not have anybody sitting on the UN Security Council.

This was an opportunity to show the world that we are serious when it comes to these kinds of munitions, cluster explosives that are very dangerous when they are used around the world. We have seen pictures from many countries of the damage these explosives do not only at the time they are dropped, but many years later.

When it came to drafting this particular convention, Canada played a role in bringing some of the countries together. The process came on the heels of another success we had, which was the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines. This was an opportunity for us to again lead the world, but the Conservatives missed it.

Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for a country to use military interoperability with non-party states. It's article 11.

Bill C-6 goes beyond the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problem lies basically in clause 11, which establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. That is where the trouble is.

In the original form of the bill, the clause permitted basically Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, and/or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention, and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported many Canadians, many experts and civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely. We like to work with the government when it comes to making legislation. That is the job of parliamentarians. When a bill gets to committee, we want to ensure that we work with the government to correct mistakes. We want to ensure that we correct mistakes not only in this particular legislation but in many other bills. We can work with the government and make this legislation better.

In many committees, not only does the NDP offer good ideas, but various professors, academics and experts in particular areas offer genuine, good advice to the government in order to improve legislation. A lot of times the government fails to consider that advice. In this case, we were able to persuade the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. That is a minor improvement, but there is still an issue with clause 11.

This legislation contains many loopholes, and the government failed to close them. We, along with experts and civil society organizations, offered advice. We were all very vocal with respect to some of the changes that needed to be made, but again, the Conservatives failed to do that.

As it currently stands, Canada's legislation, Bill C-6, will be the weakest legislation of all the countries that have ratified the convention. Unfortunately the government, even though it is opposed to cluster munitions, fits into a broader pattern of weakness on arms control. The government has refused to join all NATO allies in signing the UN arms trade treaty and has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

Canada had the opportunity to show the world that we are leaders when it comes to bringing peace to countries around the world. We had an opportunity here to lead worldwide, to show people that Canadians can provide peaceful societies around the world.

I will quote former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who said, “It is a pity that the current Canadian government”, that is the Conservative government, “in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive”.

The Conservatives seem to have myopic vision. They cannot see that they could provide leadership to the whole world. Countries around the world are looking for leadership from Canadians, and this was an opportunity for us to provide that leadership.

A number of countries have not signed on to this convention, but that does not mean we cannot work with some of the other countries. Eighty-four countries have passed bills in their legislatures. There are 113 signatories to the convention. That is a lot of countries. Working with these countries we could help persuade the countries that have not signed on. This is where Canada should be providing leadership. It has been expected for many decades, for over a hundred years, for Canada to take the lead, to bring other countries together in a peaceful manner. Yet over the last number of years we have seen, especially the present Conservative government, fail to provide that leadership.

I urge the government to live up to the letter of the convention. I urge it to make the changes that we are proposing in order to improve this legislation so we can bring countries together and have a peaceful, prosperous munitions-free world.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, because it is Canada's opportunity to show the community of nations that we are committed still to our role in the world that we established through the Ottawa process to deal with landmines and that on cluster munitions, we are prepared to implement the treaty, not just with a fingers-crossed-behind-our-back commitment but fully and in the spirit and letter of the treaty.

I agree with everything my hon. colleague said. I would ask him whether he does not agree that we should have implemented treaty language in Bill C-6.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst shares my views. In my 10-minute speech, I will touch upon several very valid points that he mentioned, and I will to add some others.

Today we are debating Bill C-6 at report stage. This bill has a good chance of being passed by the Canadian Parliament, whether we like it or not. The Conservatives reminded us over and over in their speeches why they insist on moving forward. I concede that some amendments were adopted in committee—a sort of compromise—but the reality is that the amendments do not go far enough to reassure the members of the NDP.

I would recall the figure I mentioned to my colleague earlier. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and another 112 wounded in Afghanistan by anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. Those figures terrify me.

Even if we in Canada decide not to use cluster munitions, we may become accomplices of less scrupulous countries. Some countries are less democratic, and certain elites govern and make decisions there. It terrifies me that some leaders and countries are deciding to go ahead with cluster munitions, because they exact a real human cost. I do not want to politicize this debate at all.

I wonder what would happen if, in the House of Commons today, we could hear from the families of those who did not return from combat because they were killed in situations of conflict by anti-personnel mines. I say anti-personnel mines because defective cluster munitions, weapons that lie undetonated in the ground, become anti-personnel mines.

Several of my NDP colleagues will be speaking from the heart this evening and saying how this bill raises serious concerns for them. We obviously hope the Conservative government will be reasonable and will want to amend the bill further, but I unfortunately doubt that will be the case.

It is my democratic right to represent my constituents. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I represent approximately 100,000 people. I would be lying if I said they had all contacted me in the past few days to give me their opinions. However, the people who elected me have the same social democratic values as I do.

My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, has one of the largest military bases in Canada, CFB Bagotville. It is home to 2 and 3 Wings, and it plays a very important strategic role in Canada. I am in favour of the Bagotville military base. I am in favour of the various missions that base carries out, both in our region and across our country. I am talking here about protecting our territory and providing assistance in exceptional situations.

I also agree that we should send Canadians, members of Canada’s armed forces, to disarm the world, in fact to protect us from a greater evil, if I may put it that way. We are aware that there are many countries, factions, opinions and ideologies on earth. Some parts of the world are in constant conflict.

I hope the Canadian government does not forget its peacekeeping role going forward. I think that is the best thing we can offer to countries currently in conflict and to future generations of Canadians.

Going back to cluster munitions, these weapons release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. They have devastating effects on civilians that can last for many years after a conflict is over.

Canada played an active part in the Oslo process, which led to an agreement designed to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process was triggered in order to take advantage of the success of the Ottawa convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Unfortunately, the United States, China and Russia did not take part in the process and are still stockpiling cluster munitions. That is a major concern.

Despite strong opposition by most signatory states and non-governmental organizations, Canada managed to include an article in the final text of the convention that expressly permits ongoing military interoperability with states that are not signatories to the convention. Interoperability essentially enables people to do their jobs in a military context.

Bill C-6 is not limited to that article on interoperability. The main problem is in clause 11, which provides a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 would have allowed Canadian soldiers to obtain, possess, use and transport cluster munitions in joint operations with another country that was not a signatory to the convention and to request their use by the armed forces of another country.

However, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP offered its support to Canadian and foreign civilian organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government, and we managed to persuade it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

I find it surprising that we had to bring forward an amendment to the bill. It seems to me that this amendment should have been included in the original bill, although I am pleased the government worked with the NDP on this.

Unfortunately, this bill still has other flaws. If they are not corrected, Canada’s implementation of its commitment to oppose cluster munitions will only be superficial. If Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention globally in that other countries would be able to invoke the withdrawal and exception options it contains as precedents. Believe me, we do not want that.

In its present form, the bill is less restrictive than all the laws passed to date by the countries that have ratified the convention. That is very disturbing.

The government has become somewhat timid, which does not surprise me when you consider its general reluctance to take action on arms control. For example, it refused to sign the UN arms trade treaty, unlike all our NATO allies, and also relaxed arms export restrictions.

What we want is clear. The NDP fully supported a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We stand firm on that and are very proud of it. However, this bill undermines the convention instead of ensuring that it is implemented. We also oppose the bill in its present form. At the committee stage, we worked hard to improve it together with groups from civil society. Even though the amendment approved by the Conservatives is an improvement, it is not enough for us to be able to support the bill.

In conclusion, I believe it would be best to delete clause 11 entirely. That is what we propose.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6. As we know, this is the Conservatives' bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions.

I will start by giving some background on this bill, and I will then talk about our position.

Cluster munitions are weapons that release hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area within a very short time. They have a devastating effect on civilian populations that can last for years after a conflict ends.

I am going to present some facts and figures. To properly understand this issue, it is important to note that civilians suffer 98% of all injuries caused by cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are very small. They are often the size of a D battery or a tennis ball and they have a failure rate of 30%. Unexploded cluster munitions basically become anti-personnel mines. A single cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and usually disperses them over an area the size of two or three football fields. Up to 37 countries and territories could be affected by the cluster munitions that were used during armed conflicts. Nineteen countries used cluster munitions during combat operations. A total of 34 countries produce cluster munitions, although half of them have now stopped producing these types of weapons, in some cases as a result of the convention. Canada has never used or produced cluster munitions, and our country should be thanked for that.

The worldwide stock of cluster munitions represents about 4 billion bombs, and one-quarter of that stock is held by the United States.

In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other kinds of explosive weapons. Thousands of civilians have been injured or killed by these weapons, whose presence makes farming dangerous and impedes the reconstruction and development of vital infrastructure such as roads, railway lines and power plants.

It is often difficult and dangerous to remove unexploded cluster munitions after an armed conflict. Some countries have been dealing with this problem for decades.

Laos is the most cluster-bomb-contaminated country in the world with tens of millions of unexploded cluster munitions.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines.

A total of 113 countries signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions and 84 ratified it. Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states, article 21.

Bill C-6 does not contain just this clause on military co-operation with non-signatory countries. The main problem lies in clause 11, which proposes a very vague list of exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions during combined operations involving a state not party to the Convention, and to request the use of a cluster munitions by another state's armed forces.

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the NDP backed Canadian and foreign civil organizations that called for the bill to be amended.

We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government.

We were able to convince the government to prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. Unfortunately, this bill still has serious flaws. If they are not addressed, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be shallow.

In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could have international implications for the Convention because the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries. The bill, in its current form, is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far. This is an embarrassing situation for Canada, which has always boasted about its humanitarian spirit. However, I am not surprised by the government's attitude, given its general attitude towards arms control.

I would like to remind members that this Conservative government refused to sign the UN arms trade treaty, which was signed by every one of our NATO allies. It was also this government that relaxed restrictions on arms exports. That is shameful because under this government our international humanitarian reputation continues to be eroded. Instead of being a leader on the international scene, the Conservative government is only tarnishing Canada's reputation.

I would also like to explain the NDP's position on Bill C-6. To begin, the NDP fully supported a treaty banning cluster munitions. However, Bill C-6 undermines the convention instead of ensuring its implementation.

The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as being the weakest and worst bill in the world. It undermines the very spirit in which the convention was drafted. We are opposing the bill in its current form. My NDP colleagues who are part of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development worked hard with civil society groups to improve the bill. While the amendment that the Conservatives agreed to is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support the bill. At this stage, we are proposing that clause 11 be deleted in its entirety.

A number of stakeholders share our opinion and are also opposed to the Conservative government's Bill C-6. To begin, I would like to talk about Earl Turcotte, a former senior coordinator for mines action at DFAIT who was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention. He stepped down in protest of the Conservative government's decision to introduce this very weak implementation bill. In a written statement intended for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, he said that the Conservative government had betrayed the trust of the other countries that signed the convention when it included the controversial clause in Bill C-6. Mr. Turcotte is fighting for more binding legislation. He said:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, is also opposed to the bill. He said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again, but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Even the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which almost never issue position statements on international laws, opposed this bill.

For all of these reasons, if the government is not prepared to amend this bill, we will oppose it. Other countries want to see us show some leadership on this bill.

Bill C-6—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stages of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-6—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is a propitious opportunity for me to provide the following notice to the House. I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to. So we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night, and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Motions in Amendment

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee looked at other ways to improve this bill. We talked about prohibiting investment in companies that produce cluster bombs. Other countries have done that. Civil society organizations told us that we had to get rid of clause 11. I have to emphasize how big a problem this clause is. I know we can do something else. Some countries have gone even further to eliminate the use of cluster bombs.

The essential thing now is for all members of the House to come together to eliminate clause 11 from Bill C-6.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question.

One of the things we noted missing in Bill C-6 are obligations that are outlined in the convention. Not thoroughly addressed are obligations including stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those glaring omissions.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We cannot accept this bill unless clause 11 is removed. I quoted several witnesses who appeared before the committee in support of our position. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that clause 11 would authorize activities undermining the purpose of the CCM and would contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.

To me, that speaks volumes. The Canadian Red Cross believes that Bill C-6 will contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions. That is certainly not what the House intends. I think that all MPs should work to eliminate the use of cluster bombs given their devastating impact on women, children and innocent people. We have to stop using these weapons as soon as possible.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House this evening, despite the late hour. I would like to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

It is important to me to speak to this bill because I have a lot of reservations about its content. I plan to vote against Bill C-6 in its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement.

Here is some background on the horrific effects that cluster munitions can have on civilians. Essentially cluster munitions are a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that release or eject smaller submunitions. The submunitions can be as small as a D size battery or a tennis ball.

The reason why these submunitions have such horrific effects is that their victims tend to be women and children. They tend to be civilians in a war zone or in a war situation. Moreover, unexploded submunitions essentially become landmines that can have devastating impacts on civilians many years after a conflict has ended. We have heard testimony from witnesses in committee about the devastating effects that cluster munitions can have on civilian populations.

Canada has participated actively in what was known as the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines.

Despite a strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada has succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problems with Bill C-6, as my colleagues before me have mentioned, lie in clause 11, which is the most controversial part of the bill and which establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions.

In its original form, section 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or move cluster munitions when participating in combined military operations involving a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request the use of a cluster munition by another state's armed forces.

I had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which studied Bill C-6. I am proud to be part of the NDP team and to have worked with our foreign affairs critic, my colleague from Ottawa Centre, in supporting civilian organizations in Canada and abroad and in calling for amendments to the bill.

We talked to civilian organizations and worked with committee members. My colleague from Ottawa Centre worked with the government, hoping he could persuade it to expressly prohibit Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions. Unfortunately, the bill does not go far enough.

If Bill C-6 is not amended, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be very shallow. In fact, in its current form, this bill is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far.

Why is the bill problematic? It is problematic because it creates a dangerous precedent. In fact, it could even be detrimental to the convention internationally, in that the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

The Government of Canada is not taking the lead. Instead it is attempting to undermine international initiatives to ban the use of cluster munitions.

I would like to share some of the comments heard in committee. The witnesses are very critical and very clear on the government's position.

Malcolm Fraser, a former Australian prime minister said:

It is a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

I must also mention that I have never been so ashamed about the government's position on international commitments as when I went to Durban a few years again when the government withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. That is another example of how the government operates and negotiates. It is acting in bad faith towards the international community.

Unfortunately, that is the Conservative government's way of doing things. Consequently, we have become the laughing stock of the international community.

I would like to read some more testimony into the record, and this comes from Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada. He said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Earl Turcotte, who is a former senior coordinator for mine action at DFAIT and was also the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, said the following:

...the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

The important thing to stress is the issue of trust and the very real issue that the Conservative government is slowly eroding the trust that our international partners have in our ability and our willingness to support things like human rights and climate change negotiations internationally.

The Conservative government has also fallen short in other areas. Just today in the House of Commons during question period I was able to question the Conservative government on the signing of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The government has refused to join all of our NATO allies in signing the UN Arms Trade Treaty and has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

I believe that Canadians expect better from the Canadian government. Canadians expect the government to play a leadership role and to strengthen the convention rather than propose measures such as Bill C-6 that undermine the principles of the convention.

I would like to repeat that we are opposed to the bill as presented and, although we were able to obtain one amendment during committee that the Conservatives worked together with us to implement, it is an insufficient amendment to allow us to support the bill.

I believe without question that clause 11 needs to be eliminated from the bill in order to obtain my support and in order to obtain the support of my party. The NDP and our critic have proposed to delete the clause from the bill before it passes report stage.

Of course, we all decry the horrific effects of cluster munitions, but when it comes to real action, to strengthening our position on the international stage, and to reinforcing human rights around the world, I would invite all of my colleagues in this House to join with me in calling for clause 11 to be deleted from Bill C-6.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the entire international community is trying to prevent the use of certain weapons: land mines, especially plastic ones that are undetectable and can be confused with toys; poison gas; and nuclear weapons. The international community is trying to limit those.

When we limit the use of a weapon, we do so totally and irrevocably. Cluster munitions are generally recognized for being dangerous and for unacceptably targeting civilian populations, but yet they are given a pass. That is what is unacceptable about this bill. Bill C-6 allows another exception. We publicly say that we are against these cluster munitions, but then we turn around and allow them to be used. That is precisely what the Conservatives did with the use of nuclear weapons, the Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo fighter jets.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, incongruent with the way we handled the situation with the land mine treaty, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that the loopholes within Bill C-6 are certainly not congruent with the way it used to be. Would he like to comment on that, plus the fact that there are other nations that seem to have closed these loopholes without us taking part in it in order to ratify this treaty?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a new approach to talking about cluster munitions. I have heard a lot about this topic, but what I want to talk about is a bit new. The problem with cluster munitions is that they take human judgment out of a military operation.

I want to use some examples from the Second World War. Imagine a pilot who received information about the location of tents in enemy territory. He cannot wait to bomb those tents. He gets there and sees that on these tents is a white circle with a red cross on it. He stops the attack. He will not bomb a field hospital.

That is not the case with cluster munitions. The pilot does not even see the area. He sends a missile to attack an area—not a very specific target, not a tent. He bombs an area. That is the problem. A pilot cannot use judgment and stop an attack. The cluster munition decides who will die and who will not.

A sapper, an engineer, sets up a minefield. It is mapped out. He indicates on a map where the minefield is located, and he indicates what kind of mines were used and where they are placed. There are documents that support what I am saying. Every military manual will say that this is how to create a minefield. A well-placed minefield protects the sapper, but it also protects his troops, showing them they should not walk in that area. It prevents civilians from walking into the area by accident. It is very specific.

When a cluster munition explodes, it does not discriminate. It is left to chance. A huge area is haphazardly mined. Anyone can trip those mines. That is the problem with cluster munitions. The military no longer controls the placement and structure of a minefield.

A gunner attacks an enemy battery that is in a village, or near a village. What does the gunner do? He focuses his first shots on isolated targets before attacking the village, which gives civilians time to find shelter. A cluster munition does the exact opposite. It attacks the entire area at the same time, without warning. Cluster munitions increase the number of civilian victims, mostly because they are indiscriminate. Unlike humans, who can reason, machines are indiscriminate.

We are told to be careful with cluster munitions, because even though we may not use them, our allies might. However, when we stopped using poison gas, we stopped using it altogether. We did not say that our soldiers could not use poison gas but that we would let the Americans use it on our behalf. We did not say that if we ever needed support and if, by chance, poison gas was used, it would not be our fault. Poison gas is entirely prohibited. Cluster munitions are not subject to that same rule.

The biggest problem is that even if we ourselves do not use cluster bombs, we use their delivery systems. One of the biggest is the F-35. Our government wants to buy F-35s. An F-35 without cluster bombs is like a shotgun without bullets. Therein lies the contradiction.

How can we employ technology that is designed for the use of cluster bombs? That is what makes this situation so hypocritical. This is just like what happened with nuclear warheads.

Canada signed an international protocol prohibiting it from having nuclear weapons. What did Diefenbaker's Conservative government do? It said it wanted to use American F-101 Voodoo fighter jets and huge Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles. Those missiles are effective only if equipped with nuclear warheads. Canada might not have any nuclear warheads, but it would allow American technicians to bring nuclear warheads to Canadian military bases. If things started going badly, those American technicians could put nuclear warheads on Canadian planes and Canadian missiles. In theory, we signed a protocol prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The very same thing is happening now. The government puts on a show of being virtuous, but behind the scenes, it is finding ways to use these weapons. This kind of approach is dishonourable. If we do not want to use cluster munitions or be allied with countries that use cluster munitions, the simple answer is peace. We just do not participate in armed conflict with people who use these weapons. If we do so, we become accomplices.

One day we will have to face that fact. Just because the Americans go to war does not mean we have to be idiots and join them simply because the Conservatives think it is exciting.

It is not exciting to see Canadian soldiers die. It is not exciting for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have to kill people. Even less acceptable is when Canadian soldiers participate in military operations whose targets are primarily civilians. Peace is not built with weapons, but unfortunately, that is something we forget too often here.

Obviously, the NDP opposes Bill C-6, which allows for sly ways to use these unacceptable weapons. We want Canada to sign on fully to an agreement that has already been signed by several countries. That is what we want, and it is not unreasonable. Many countries that are U.S. allies have already done it. Being a U.S. ally does not necessarily mean being their underlings or their servants and finding that exciting. I will leave that to the government people.

So, naturally, the NDP believes that clause 11 has to go.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out in his speech, the issue of cluster munitions is particularly tragic because the victims are often women and children. That is what we heard in committee when we were studying this bill.

My colleague also commented on the fact that the government has become the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to cluster munitions and the contents of Bill C-6.

Can my colleague talk about why clause 11 is so problematic? Does he think, like I do, that this clause should be taken out?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is an important bill that will significantly impact future international conflicts and Canada's role in them.

My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that the bill contains some major flaws, unfortunately. If it is passed in its present form, we will have signed the convention in invisible ink, because we will in fact not be adhering to the letter of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In many parts of the world, the Conservative bill to implement the convention is considered to be the weakest one and, quite honestly, the worst one.

The bill is very problematic, which is why it is essential that we amend it. As my colleagues have already stated, we will only be able to support it if it is amended. As it currently stands, the bill undermines the spirit in which the convention was drafted as well as its intent, namely the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. Tragically, those who have no stake in conflicts, civilians, far too often become the unfortunate victims of these dangerous weapons.

We have worked very hard with Canadian and international civil society groups to convince the government to ban the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. The bill is still riddled with several dangerous and unnecessary legal gaps. These would allow Canadian soldiers to come into contact with highly dangerous and lethal cluster munitions and even use them. Their projectiles can unfortunately hit civilian populations.

The NDP will keep pressuring the Conservatives to amend this bill, so that Canada can at least be recognized as a humanitarian country, a humanist one, and a leader when it comes to promoting peace and protecting civilians.

Canada used to have a better reputation on the international stage. Recently, under the Conservative government, we have lost opportunities to maintain and even enhance our country's reputation. For example, Canada was the first and only country to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. We backed away from our responsibility to protect our environment and our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All this tarnishes our reputation. Many experts and witnesses have said that of all bills created by the signatories to the convention, Canada's is the weakest.

I hope that the Conservatives will have the diligence and open-mindedness to accept the amendments put forward in good faith, so that the convention can be ratified. Canada will then be party to a convention aimed at improving the well-being of civilians and children, who are often victims of cluster munitions.

Unfortunately, Canada managed to negotiate, in the final text of the convention, the inclusion of an article allowing for ongoing military interoperability with states not party to the convention. That is a weakness.

What is worse is that Bill C-6 is not only about this article on interoperability. The main problem lies with clause 11, which proposes a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request that they be used by the armed forces of another country.

Obviously, such a provision does not respect the spirit of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Clause 11 makes it virtually impossible for the NDP to support the bill. That is why I am saying amendments will be required. The amendments that the NDP and other parties will propose will have to be accepted to bring the bill back on the right track and respect this very important convention.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP gave its support to Canadian and foreign civil organizations calling for the bill to be amended. Unfortunately, this legislation has other flaws, but that is the main one.

We want to fully support the development of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We want a treaty to implement such a ban, as stated in the convention. However, this bill does not fully implement the convention.

The NDP will not support the bill as it stands. In committee, we will work very hard with civil society groups to ensure that the amendments, which are logical and accepted by civil society and international groups, are also accepted by the Conservatives. We will then be able to support the bill. We must sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions because it is good and it goes in the right direction. However, the bill must also go in the same direction.

At this time, the best thing would be for the Conservatives to accept our proposed amendment to completely delete clause 11. I think this would allow us to have a perfect bill.

Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for the mine action program for Afghanistan at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He said:

In my opinion, the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to date.

He is a very significant figure in the negotiations, and he is saying that the proposed legislation is the worst. It does not satisfy Canada's obligations with respect to international humanitarian law. It does not protect vulnerable civilians in war-torn countries. In addition, it betrays the trust of the countries that negotiated the treaty in good faith. It also falls short of Canadians' expectations.

I could quote many other witnesses who made similar comments. The bill does not hold up and it does not comply with the convention. I am not the one saying it, the experts are. It absolutely needs to be amended.

I am reaching out to the Conservatives, and I hope that they will be open to amending this bill so that it honours the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House again.

Does my colleague believe it is possible to improve Bill C-6? Does she agree that we now have an opportunity to improve it?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is very clear that signing the convention was necessary and important. At that time, we took a step in the right direction.

Today, we want to ratify the convention by means of Bill C-6. My colleague mentioned clause 11. In this regard, the fact that our soldiers will themselves be complicit one way or another in using cluster munitions is a notable and disastrous step backwards. It will do nothing to reduce the number of deaths or to prevent children from playing with cluster munitions and being killed, maimed or wounded.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are quite obviously in favour of a complete and total ban on cluster munitions. If we consider wars in history and the very recent war in Afghanistan, they should serve as a reminder that we can truly build a peaceful future for our children. We will not move in that direction by acting in this manner and passing bills such as Bill C-6.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are considering a bill sponsored by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I have a few preliminary remarks to make before commenting specifically on it.

This week, we have been sitting late into the evening to debate in haste bills that the Conservative government wants to push through. However, this bill was introduced in the House on December 6, 2012. The Conservatives then took six months to bring it to the debate stage. Once that was done, they imposed time allocation on us to limit debate, and now they have started up again with the same bill one year later.

The Conservatives often accuse us of hypocrisy and wanting to delay legislation, but it is they who constantly diminish democracy by forcing Parliament’s hand. I would point out that we are on our 64th time allocation motion and the Conservatives have a majority. They therefore control the agenda.

In these circumstances, they have convened a botched debate on a bill as debatable as Bill C-6. Here we see all the consideration the Conservatives have for world affairs: they legislate hastily late at night before thinned ranks.

It is as though regulating the production and purchase of cluster munitions did not merit having the Conservatives devote a little more time to it. The reason for this haste is obvious: they have no desire to give Canadians any way of realizing that the bill before us serves no other purpose than to prevent the application of the convention is supposed to implement.

This legislative step backward will have definite consequences that everyone here must know in his or her soul and conscience before approving the principle of it. I can state right away that this backtracking from our desire to regulate cluster munitions will mean death, suffering and blood.

The Conservative members who speak after me will naturally say I am exaggerating. They will pretend they want to pass the bill precisely in order to prevent my prediction from coming true. However, we members of the NDP do not hide behind empty words. We do not call deregulation reform or a step backward progress. We look at the reality head-on.

I see the reality of cluster munitions and conventional weapons every time I visit the two Royal Canadian Legions in my riding. I encounter that reality every Remembrance Day. It is written in every wound of every veteran who lost an arm, a leg or a hand in combat. The reality of cluster munitions is terribly cruel.

These bombs were used for the first time during World War II. Since then, they have been used on all battlefields, including the most recent ones in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. These weapons were designed to disperse explosive submunitions over a small area.

Their effect is devastating. No one can escape. They cause indiscriminate harm to anyone and anything in their area. Their failure rate makes cluster munitions particularly dangerous for civilians: 30% do not explode when they hit the ground. They wait patiently for their victims, who continue to be maimed or killed years and even decades after the war has ended.

It is astounding that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians and 40% of them are children, a proportion that is heart-stopping. In addition to the wounds they cause, cluster munitions contaminate arable land, kill livestock and destroy shelters, permanently impeding economic recovery and development.

In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and its initiatives in terms of disarmament and conventional arms control, Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. In doing so, it made a commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, sell, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. By signing the convention, Canada also made a commitment to destroy all cluster munitions in its possession within eight years.

Canada’s signing of the convention committed it to providing assistance to the victims of cluster munitions and the other states parties to the convention. It was also to take all the necessary legislative measures to have the text adopted in its domestic law, which is why we are here this evening. At the time, we had underlined the signing of the convention as progress in keeping with Canada’s humanitarian tradition and duty.

If Bill C-6 were nothing but that, we would pass it with no hesitation. However, as it always does, the Conservative government has distorted the spirit of the law. The text it has put before us today reneges on the commitment it made yesterday. As always happens with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. The details in this text are terrible. They include a loophole in the ban on using cluster munitions. The key word is “interoperability”. By including this word in the bill, even though we have signed the ban on cluster munitions, we could use them anyway. This means that the convention that we signed is undermined by the government’s action.

The testimony of those who negotiated the convention supports this view. The lead negotiator, Earl Turcotte, said in writing about this bill that “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said it was “a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive”.

Once again, Canada is content to be at the bottom of the class. That makes me sad for my country. However, experts, international figures and NDP members are not the only ones who are saying that this is a bad bill. On June 11, the defence minister at that time acknowledged that this was true. He said that the bill was not perfect and that it should be amended. It still has enormous deficiencies. It must be reviewed before it can be passed. I sincerely hope this will convince the Conservative members to listen for once to those who do not share their opinion rather than persisting in blindly passing anything and everything.

As for me, given the suffering of the victims of these abominable weapons, the destruction they cause and my duty toward humanity, I will refuse to support this bill, which, in its present form, contradicts and undermines the international treaty that it is supposed to implement and ratify.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, specifically clause 11.

In my previous life, I was very familiar with cluster munitions because it was my job. They used to form part of our war stock of weapons on the CF-104 and later on the CF-18. I instructed others on their tactical application of weapons effects, which were horrific. We never dropped the actual weapons, even in training, due to the residual hazard, and thank God we never had to drop them in wartime, but we were trained and prepared to do so. That was then.

Members of this House are well aware of the nature of cluster munitions and the kind of harm they can cause. We all know that they have terrible effects and that any unexploded remnants are a long-term threat to civilians seeking to rebuild their community after a conflict has ended.

These cluster bombs, as has been pointed out, can contain hundreds of small bomblets that are designed to cover a large area. The problem is, there is always a dud rate, or some number of bomblets that do not detonate on impact but remain armed and deadly. Sometimes they are harvested intentionally, and very carefully, and used in the production of improvised explosive devices. More often, they are simply left lying around for an unsuspecting person to accidentally detonate them, with catastrophic results.

As Canadians, we should all be committed to ridding the world of these weapons. As parliamentarians, we should all be committed to ensuring that the convention on cluster munitions is fully implemented as a step towards that ultimate goal. Bill C-6 was drafted carefully to reflect this commitment and to give effect to those obligations required by the convention within domestic Canadian legislation.

Bill C-6 would allow us to implement the convention while at the same time meet our broader defence needs. It would allow us to remain a strong and reliable ally and continue to contribute meaningfully on the international stage, both as a contributor and participant in joint and combined military operations, in the interest of international peace and security, and as a participant in the effort to rid the world of cluster munitions and their explosive remnants.

While Canada is ready to join the convention and renounce the direct use of cluster munitions, not all countries share our approach and may not join the convention any time soon. Some of them, of course, are NATO allies, countries with whom we would likely enter into combined military operations in the foreseeable future.

All members of this House understand that Canada and the United States are close allies and that the Canadian Armed Forces have a long-standing tradition and practice of close co-operation with our American counterparts. This co-operation has been good for both countries, and it is important and necessary for our common security interests. It has also been in the interest of peace and security at the global level. We co-operate in training, we exchange personnel so that each of us can understand how the other's military forces are organized and commanded, and we co-operate in actual military operations.

The convention would require Canada itself not to make, possess, or directly use cluster munitions and to prosecute and punish Canadians who do. However, it would also allow us to continue to co-operate with our allies.

I believe that Canadian international security interests require that we continue to co-operate as closely in the future as we have in the past with our allies. I believe that the convention and this bill strike the right balance in this regard.

Clause 11 of Bill C-6 contains exclusions to the bill's prohibitions in order to provide legal protection to the Canadian Armed Forces and government employees, allowing them to perform a range of activities during military co-operation and operations that are undertaken with states that have not joined the convention. This is specifically permitted by article 21 of the convention.

Article 21 was purposefully included in the text at the request of a number of countries, including Canada. We are not alone in advocating for military co-operation. A number of other countries have had legitimate military interoperability concerns and shared Canada's concerns that it was necessary to preserve the ability of countries that were ratified to co-operate with countries that might choose not to ratify.

In Bill C-6, and in our defence and security policies, Canada is applying the provisions of the convention as negotiated and drafted. The government has always been clear about what these provisions require and transparent about how it intended to implement them.

Article 21 does not allow Canada itself to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, or transfer cluster munitions or to expressly request their use when the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control. All of these activities would be made offences in Canada. It would only allow individuals who participate in permitted forums of military co-operation involving Canada to do so without risk of criminal prosecution.

As the government has made clear, Canadian Armed Forces personnel would not be permitted to use cluster munitions, including when they are involved in military operations with allied forces or when deployed to allied military units. We have numerous Canadians on exchange with particularly American, but other NATO allies as well.

Bill C-6, as amended by the committee, would prohibit the direct use of cluster munitions by Canadian Armed Forces personnel in all circumstances. During committee hearings, we heard that the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued an interim directive prohibiting the use of these weapons in any Canadian Armed Forces operations and that another directive will be issued reflecting all of the requirements of Bill C-6, as ultimately adopted by Parliament, in addition to further restrictions relating to training and transport going beyond the requirements of the convention.

We were also told that all of these restrictions would be incorporated in the Canadian Armed Forces rules of engagement and would typically be communicated to allies when Canada enters into military co-operation activity with them, as one method of informing our allies of our obligations under the convention. They would be implemented at such time as the bill receives royal assent and would be legally binding for Canadian Armed Forces members under the military justice system.

The convention and Bill C-6 allow Canadian Armed Forces members to continue to ask for potentially life-saving military assistance from our allies, be they parties to the convention or not, without fear of being disciplined or put on trial for the policy decisions of these other states.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member opposite would remove the exclusion for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. This would have the effect not only of compromising Canadian security, but also of potentially subjecting our own soldiers to prosecution for activities that are not actually prohibited by the treaty itself.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have volunteered to serve their country and they have joined an honourable profession in which the directions of the organizations and the orders of commanding officers have the force of law. We have an obligation to ensure that companies and individuals in Canada do not have or use cluster munitions, but we need not, and we should not, enact criminal offences that could subject our own soldiers to liability for engaging in activities that the convention permits and that are essential to our own security and their safety.

Agreeing to renounce and dispose of our own duster munitions sends a strong signal as to where Canada stands on this important issue, but so does the message that we respect the decisions of our friends and allies and that we will stand with them in the defence of international security come what may. We have carefully considered the balance between security and disarmament, both in the long process of negotiating the convention and in our own review of the proposed implementing legislation.

We all agree that the ultimate goal is to eliminate cluster munitions from armed conflict. The best way to do that is for Canada to ratify the convention.

My hon. colleague from the NDP quoted Paul Hannon, Executive Director at Mines Action Canada. I will also quote Mr. Hannon. He said that the government's decision to remove the one word, “using”, was significant.

That was referred to by my colleague across the way as well. Mr. Hannon went on to say:

We were surprised to get any amendment and surprised that was the amendment we got. If they were only going to delete one word, “using” was the most important one.

It clarifies the fact that Canadian forces themselves can never use clusters, but it also means it will be more difficult for other countries to use them in joint ops when Canadians are involved.

We can interpret what other people say any way we like, I guess, but there seem to be at least some folks who are agreeing that what we are doing may not be what they would desire in their perfect world. However we are not operating in anybody's perfect world. Canada has gone a long way in this regard, as my colleague the parliamentary secretary for the minister of foreign affairs said. He talked about the mine clearing operations and so on. I have been to Afghanistan many times, and I have talked to the folks who are doing the mine clearing over there. They do tremendous work. This is an area that will take continued effort. It will go on for years and years. Yes, they are a terrible hazard and they do wreak terrible destruction, not just at the time of use.

I am not sure. I am having it checked, but I do not believe that the U.S. used any cluster munitions in their operations in Afghanistan. There were no Canadians killed by cluster munitions in Afghanistan, none. IEDs and so on are another issue.

The best way we can move forward on this is for Canada to ratify the convention with the measures of Bill C-6. I hope that members will look carefully at all the elements of the bill and will join me in supporting it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent address. The member spoke so clearly to the issues that I think all of us on the opposition benches at least, and I imagine some friends on the Conservative side in their heart, would like to see changed.

I am going to refer to a brief that came from Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, which made some of the same points. Their reading of this bill, as it is before us now, said that under this bill we may still be running, not only not meeting the convention's goals, but running “counter to, the convention's goals”.

They are concerned that the bill:

Permits assistance with cluster munition-related activities...in the course of joint military operations...; Allows stockpiling of cluster munitions in and transit of them through Canadian territory; Provides only a limited ban on transfer of cluster munitions; and Fails explicitly to prohibit investment in the production of cluster munitions.

My question is for my hon. colleague. Given these failures, how does he believe Bill C-6 stands up to the promises and the commitments we have made in signing the convention in the first place?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Bill C-6 is an attempt to undermine rather than ratify the convention.

I had the pleasure of working in the committee that studied Bill C-6. We heard from many witnesses, including Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, who had this to say on the bill:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with this weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

We also heard from other witnesses, including former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser who said:

It is a pity the current Canadian Government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

Has my colleague been able to consult with stakeholders on this issue, and what is his reading of the stakeholder situation?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my hon. colleagues for allowing me this time, and as always, I thank my constituents for giving me the honour of speaking to this and other measures.

We have been talking for the past hour about cluster munitions. I just wanted to address the gravity of the situation, in addition to what was said by my hon. colleague from British Columbia, the leader of the Green Party.

Cluster munitions are a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that release or eject smaller submunitions. Commonly, a cluster bomb ejects explosive bomblets that are designed to kill personnel and destroy vehicles. Other cluster munitions are designed to destroy runways or electric power transmission lines, disperse chemical or biological weapons, or scatter land mines. Some submunition-based weapons can disperse non-munitions, such as leaflets. Of course, that is just a mild form.

As many people have said, over 95% of the victims, when it comes to cluster bombs, are civilians. For these cluster bombs, many would say, ratification has been a long-time coming. In this particular situation, and in all situations around the world, we must respect the spirit of the treaty that was signed.

Because cluster bombs release many small bomblets over a wide area, they pose risks to civilians both during attacks and afterwards.The weapons are prone to indiscriminate effects, especially in populated areas, the larger urban areas. Unexploded bomblets, and this is where it gets even worse, can kill or maim civilians and/or unintended targets long after a conflict has ended, and they are costly to locate and remove.

We draw the similarities between the work we did on the landmine treaty here in Ottawa and our ongoing efforts to defuse landmines around the world.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-6. We worked hard to improve the bill while it was before the foreign affairs committee and have met with numerous organizations and individual Canadians who have shared their concerns with us about the legislation. I want to congratulate my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie, who was involved in that, for the hard work he accomplished.

Unfortunately, there was one improvement made to the bill, and only one, at committee. On balance, we find it still sorely lacking in terms of meeting Canada's commitments as a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Canada has long been a leader on humanitarian disarmament, most notably with the Liberal government's leadership in banning the use of landmines, and we must avoid undermining this Canadian tradition of international leadership.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an important convention, with an ability to reduce radically the number of cluster bombs and cluster bomb deaths and injuries around the world.

These are particularly heinous and indiscriminate weapons, as I mentioned earlier. Recent research indicates that more than 90% of reported cluster munition casualties are civilians, and about half of these are children, who often mistake these bombs and bomblets as harmless toys.

These are weapons that are hard to target. They are hard to control. Decades after the wars in Southeast Asia, hundreds of civilians continue to lose life and limb to those bombs in countries such as Laos and Vietnam. It not just a problem of the past. Cluster munitions continue to be used in the brutal war in Syria and will leave a legacy of death and injury in that country for years after the war ends.

Canada has a duty to ensure that we hold ourselves to the highest possible humanitarian standard in our international obligations. Leading the fight to ban these weapons would be consistent with that duty.

Bill C-6, Canada's ratification legislation in answer to the treaty, contains serious loopholes, in particular clause 11 of the bill, which has to do with joint operations with states that are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The Conservative government has put in “exceptions” in this section of Bill C-6 that undermine the spirit and the objective of the convention and call into question Canada's commitment to ban cluster munitions.

Earlier I mentioned that we saw one improvement at committee stage. The government finally agreed to amend the wording of the legislation to indicate that Canada could not “use” cluster munitions. The practical effect of this change seems to mean that Canadian soldiers operating as part of joint military missions with non-signatory countries would be prohibited from dropping a cluster bomb.

However, as pointed out by the Mennonite Central Committee and other expert witnesses, Canadian Forces could still facilitate the ongoing use of these weapons in many instances, and here they are: directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import, or export of a cluster munition; expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition; acquiring, possessing, or moving a cluster munition; transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition; aiding, abetting, or counselling another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import, or export a cluster munition; conspiring with another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import, or export a cluster munition; and finally, receiving, comforting, or assisting another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import or export a cluster munition.

Including such major loopholes radically undermines the practical effects of the convention.

Either Canada is for or against cluster munitions. By passing this legislation as it is currently formulated, the government appears to be engaged in what my former colleague, Bob Rae, called organized hypocrisy. We sign legislation that appears, but only appears, to ratify the convention , but we include major loopholes in fine print that mean that nothing would really change on the combat field, at least when we participate in joint operations with non-signatory countries, such as the United States, which is typical of most Canadian deployments.

The government replied that the realities of interoperability mean that we had no choice but to include these loopholes if we wished to continue participating in joint missions with the Americans. This is clearly not true. In fact, 20 NATO countries have signed this convention without including these kinds of loopholes in their ratifying legislation, and they continue to operate in joint missions with the United States.

Department of National Defence representatives noted that there is always recognition in a partnership such as NATO that each country has different rules, and there are no repercussions from those differences inside a coalition. In a case where a nation would not use a particular weapon, we would not eliminate them from the coalition. We would simply employ them in the coalition in such a way as to not cause them to violate a principle or a domestic law, which would have fit in our amendments.

Bill C-6 is also missing key positive obligations that are outlined in the convention, including stockpiling, destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of our convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions. This ratification legislation does not adequately promote the stigmatization of the use of cluster bombs.

The government likes to talk a lot about how its foreign policy is based on principled stands and seems to imply that this is novel for Canadian governments. What is principled, though, about passing legislation that appears to ratify an international convention we signed onto but then including loopholes within that fine print? It is not the way we have proceeded in many treaties past.

Respectfully, I would suggest that Canada's previous leadership of banning land mines was a much better example of principled foreign policy. I very much regret that we are not able to improve the legislation significantly.

We would like to thank organizations such as Mines Action Canada and the Mennonite Central Committee that did all they could do to raise awareness about this issue. I would also like to thank the expert witnesses we heard in committee.

I am also very sorry for the thousands of people all over the world who have been injured or killed by these weapons, which we can all agree are the most devastating and most vicious weapons known to humankind.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks by expressing my deep gratitude to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, both for his championing of this issue and for his generosity in seconding my amendment this evening, so that I can explain the reasons that the Green Party is so very disappointed with what is before us here in Bill C-6.

We had a chance to get it right. We had a chance to stand with the community of nations and fulfill the promise of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. As my hon. colleague has mentioned, Canada played a significant role. We got a reputation globally as being willing to step out ahead when there was the Ottawa process to deal with land mines. It is in that vein that we are going to go forward and deal with cluster munitions.

As was just mentioned, it is estimated that between 95% and 98% of the casualties from cluster munitions are civilians. Of that, 40% are children. These are not weapons of war. These are monstrous tools of destruction for the innocent, and Canada should rightly be at the forefront in ensuring that such munitions are never used again.

I want to quote from the treaty, which we have actually signed. We have signed this convention, and the legislation before us is required as a tool to bring that treaty into force for Canada. For ratification we need a domestic law. Unfortunately, this domestic law has tilted in the wrong direction.

Let us just look at the language of the convention. Canada has signed this treaty. As a state party to the convention, we are:

Deeply concerned that civilian populations and individual citizens continue to bear the brunt of armed conflict. Determined [that is a good verb] to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions at the time of their use, when they fail to function as intended or when they are abandoned. Concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians, including women and children....

In this vein, we continue to have the language of commitment, of concern to protect human life from weapons that are designed specifically to destroy human populations, civilian populations, and do damage to the innocent.

The operative section of the convention is very important, and I want to return to it for a few of the things that the bill fails to do. Article 1, the general obligations and scope of application, commits Canada to the following:

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to: (a) Use cluster munitions; (b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;

The third part of this important paragraph is really significant. It states:

(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Those are the key operative phrases. Then we have Bill C-6, which is largely a carve-out that says we were just kidding when we said “never under any circumstances”. We have a bunch of circumstances in which Canadian Armed Forces are going to be working alongside one of our military allies. It is clearly intended. As my hon. friend mentioned, so far the United States has not ratified this treaty, so we know that we might be in a theatre of operations—as we now describe wars—with our allies, namely the United States. They might be using cluster munitions, and we would want to safeguard our ability to work alongside them.

I will acknowledge and I do accept that this is a large and important move for this particular Conservative administration, because it so rarely changes any bill. My hon. friend, who is the parliamentary secretary, moved in committee to remove the opportunity for any Canadian soldier or military operation to actually use the weapons, but the bill still allows us to participate, to be alongside in a shared military operation with an ally that is not a party to this convention.

There was other language put forward in various presentations to the committee that would have protected Canadian operations if they were in such a shared military operation with a non-party state. There was other language that would have worked very well. Human Rights Watch suggested that we could replace clause 11 with the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of the paragraphs...[which are referenced] of the National Defence Act or who is an employee as defined...[and this is the operative portion] in the course of military cooperation, our combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from merely participating in military cooperation or operations with a foreign country that is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

That would have vouchsafed. That would have been the protection the Canadian military would have needed for the circumstance for which we have created a far too aggressive exemption in clause 11.

It is a great tragedy that we had one amendment. I have to say that one amendment in the current context of this particular Parliament, coming from the government, is unusual and it was welcomed, but it did not go far enough to rescue this from being, as my hon. friend has said, the weakest of all the implementing legislation of any nation that has so far signed this convention.

It leaves us in a position that is really rather shameful.

I want to return to one of the other areas. I mentioned that in the convention language, we are obligated as a convention party to do nothing to assist or induce anyone to engage in an activity prohibited here.

A great number of nations have, in interpreting that section in which we are prohibited from assisting, interpreted it very clearly to mean that there should be a ban on investment. There should be no investments allowed. In order to comply with this treaty, Canada should ban anyone from investing in any of the operations of any of the providers of cluster munitions.

There is nothing in this legislation that stops companies in Canada or investors in Canada from actually assisting through their financial investments. That is the kind of amendment that should have been included, and it is not here.

I pointed out that the following nations have actually ensured, through legislation, that no investment in cluster munitions be allowed. That is included in legislation from Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Samoa, and Switzerland.

As an interpretive decision, so too have other nations said that they understand this convention to mean that they must not allow any investment in cluster munitions. In taking the interpretive decision, the U.K. and a larger group of nations, including Germany, Norway, and many others, have decided they cannot understand this convention without understanding that they have to ban investment in cluster munitions.

We have lost the moral high ground here. We are slipping down to where we have signed a convention that says we are completely committed to never, under any circumstance, use or encourage or assist in the spread of these deadly, immoral weapons of assault on civilians. We will never do that, we say, yet somehow, when we read Bill C-6, we feel that we have crossed our fingers behind our backs. We mean “never” most of the time, but sometimes we are going to be in a theatre of war and we do not want to be too bound by our word under the convention to ban cluster munitions.

In this place we still have time to remedy that. The hon. member for Ottawa South has put forward an amendment. The Green Party has put forward an amendment. Should this House assembled decide that Canada can reclaim the moral high ground, we still have time.

We have the moral courage. We are Canadians. We stand for peace. We believe that children should not be blown up because they find a piece of metal and think they can recover that scrap metal to buy their family supper.

We are, by God, Canadians, and we stand for peace, and we stand against war, and we stand against cluster munitions. Bill C-6 says “not really”. Let us amend the bill here and now at third reading and report stage.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to our amendments to Bill C-6.

We have debated this bill before. In fact, we had an iteration of the bill from the Senate before, in which we had concerns at the time of where the bill was originating from. I will not go over that tonight.

Bill C-6 is a very important piece of legislation. Sadly, it took the government quite a while to bring in legislation for the cluster munitions treaty.

Perhaps I will start by going over the treaty itself. The convention was built upon the Ottawa treaty, which was very successful, and we are all very proud of it. That was the Ottawa land mines treaty convention. It was built upon that treaty to rid the world of these horrific weapons: cluster munitions. It was signed by 118 countries, which is significant as that is more than three-quarters of the member states of the UN, with 84 countries ratifying it. In fact, in terms of the process, there were negotiations, and the Dublin process and Oslo process followed it. What we ended up with was a convention that was important for the whole issue of disarmament and to rid the world of these horrific munitions.

I think everyone is aware of what land mines are, but what is so horrific about cluster munitions is that they are very difficult to source. They fall from the sky and are particularly vicious in the sense that they are often misunderstood by those in war zones as being toys. These bombs are as small as a D battery. These bomblets are dropped from the sky and explode across the terrain. They are very difficult to discover and, of course, to clean up. The damage caused from them has been horrific in conflicts right across the world. They have maimed and killed children and adults. People have wanted to rid the world of these munitions for a very long time.

It is important to note that at times the world has come together to focus on disarmament. I mentioned the Ottawa treaty, which was to work to rid the world of land mines. That has been successful, but more work needs to be done. However, this is on cluster munitions, which is something that people have worked on for quite a while.

I have two testimonies to give members an idea of the cluster munition.

The first is from Remzi Mehmeti from South Serbia. Remzi's 15-year-old son was walking home with his three friends and picked up two unexploded cluster bomblets. His son died and his friends were injured.

This testimony is from Mai Chi, who is a demining expert in Vietnam.

I saw the pliers and a pair of broken sunglasses that the children had used to tamper with the submunition, in an attempt to get scrap metal to sell for cash...

By the way, this is a typical kind of work for children in developing countries.

The quote goes on with:

I saw a pair of torn sandals, a hole on the floor and the ball bearings from the submunition.

I walked closer to the bed in the centre of the house. Someone pulled the blanket up, revealing two dead bodies. Legs and hands were smashed and blown away.

What a terrifying scene. I closed my eyes, feeling breathless and ran out. People were crying louder and louder.

These children had taken scrap metal, brought it home and did what they usually did with scrap metal, which was pull it apart. In doing so, they had no idea they were pulling apart a cluster munition. It blew up and killed them both. This is why we have to get rid of cluster munitions.

I am saddened to say that we have tried to work with the government. We have made propositions. We have brought amendments tonight to change the implementation of this treaty. As members know, when a state signs a treaty, that is the first step. It is to say that the treaty is here and we will sign it. For instance, I was encouraging the government today to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. As was mentioned by a colleague in the House, we have not done so, along with other countries like Russia, Syria, and other countries that are the usual suspects in not signing these treaties.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been pilloried by many experts and those who strongly believe in the whole idea of banning the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other sections. Clause 11 allows Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not be in joint operations with them while they were using those particular armaments. This bill has a void in it, a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre where one of our allies is using these munitions. This is not acceptable.

I will read clause 11 into the record, but I will omit the first part of the paragraph. It allows “Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention” to direct or authorize “an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition”.

What that does is basically work against the whole notion and spirit of the convention. I have gone over this with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have talked to the government on many occasions. Clause 11 works against the spirit and the notion of the convention. What we are saying to the government in these amendments is that if it is interested in taking a leadership role when it comes to cluster munitions, then it has to have the legislation that lives up to that. What the treaty asks of the member states who sign it is to basically get rid any stockpiles they have and not to use them if there is an occasion when there are cluster munitions in theatre. It is fine for us to say that we do not have any or that we will get rid of them, but it is another thing to say that we will not use them.

It is not just the NDP saying this. Let me quote from some of the people who are critical of this legislation, to the point where they are saying that we must vote against this legislation because it undermines the treaty.

For instance, the Red Cross, which never speaks out on legislation, feels strongly about this issue. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Red Cross have said that clause 11 would:

...permit activities that undermine the object and purpose of the [cluster munitions treaty] and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than bringing about their elimination.

The Red Cross is saying that clause 11 would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the treaty.

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said the following at committee:

It is a pity the current Canadian Government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

This is important to note, because former prime minister Malcolm Fraser is an expert not only on cluster munitions but on disarmament. He knows what he speaks of.

Therefore, our amendments are to try to fix this bill so that we can be proud of our signature on the treaty. Sadly, what the Conservatives have done is give us a treaty that undermines their reputation and their signature, and we believe it is not adequate.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a few very interesting examples. I talked about Bill C-32 earlier. The last time we studied it was on April 9. Three people spoke to this bill, which the government claims is fundamental and extremely important.

I cannot wait to see which of these bills will get more time than the others. Obviously it will be their pet projects, the ones they can get a lot of mileage out of.

There are other bills that we have not seen since January, such as Bill C-2. Three people spoke to Bill C-3 on May 8. No one has spoken to Bill C-6 yet. Three people spoke to Bill C-8 and no one has spoken to Bill C-10. However, they were approved in committee a very long time ago.

If the government believed in the fight against contraband tobacco, the bill would have been sent back to the House as soon as it left the committee. Since the bill was approved in committee, it could have been passed quickly by the House. We are going to have to pass it at the same time as a bunch of other bills.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by sharing a couple of sentiments with my friend.

First, on this side of the House—speaking for myself at least, and many others, including the Prime Minister—we congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their success and wish them all the best in the next round, where I am optimistic Canadians will have much to look forward to.

Second, I have to agree with the member about the fact that what we saw today was a preview of what we would see if the NDP were ever to win government. We saw a grilling where the highlight was the question of NDP corruption and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. That is what we could expect to see if the NDP were ever to become government, and because Canadians know that, we will never have to fear it happening.

That abuse of taxpayers' funds goes beyond the question of breaking rules and not following rules. It goes to the whole NDP philosophy that taxpayers' money is there for them, they should get more of it, and they should spend it in every way possible. That is what the NDP is all about.

We in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, have an approach that is focused on a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament that respects taxpayers' dollars. As a result, we will continue with our agenda.

I will note the highlight today from the NDP. The NDP was defending itself on charges of improper spending and improperly using taxpayers' dollars for partisan activity. The member did not point out that the NDP's positive agenda was what they were proposing today in the House of Commons on one of the rare days when NDP members actually get to put forward their own policy proposals. It is funny how he says, “That is not the highlight”. I agree with him, because when they do get in power, they will have very little to advocate for.

That said, we on this side do follow the rules, and the rules require that we continue with the NDP opposition day motion for the balance of the day.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, before we return to our constituencies for a week.

Upon our return we will roll up our sleeves and work hard for Canadians in the final sittings until the summer.

On Monday, May 26, we will consider Bill C-18, which is the agricultural growth act.

On Tuesday, May 27, we will resume the second reading debate on Vanessa's law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

That will be followed by Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act at second reading.

The next day will see us continue our productive, hard-working, and orderly agenda by returning to the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship act. As hon. members might recall, the New Democrats proposed a second reading amendment to block the passage of this important bill.

On Thursday, May 29, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Act. After that debate concludes, we will consider Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage. Finally, we will consider Bill C-10, the Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, at report stage and third reading on Friday, May 30.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this spring.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That concludes the work on Bill C-6. I want to thank everybody. I want to thank our witnesses, and I want to thank the committee members.

Since this is our last meeting before Christmas break, I want to take the time to thank our interpreters for the great work they do, and all the support staff around here who do great work, and of course our clerks and our analysts for the excellent jobs they do on a daily basis in a non-partisan way and very professional way.

[Applause])

That is it. We do not have any business in particular picked out for the new year yet. We're going to have to look at that when we come back, or we can have some discussion.

Mr. Dewar and then Ms. May.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, sir. The purpose of amendment LIB-8 is to be compliant with one of the requirements of the convention, which is that we are supposed to not only undertake to do or not to do certain things with respect to cluster munitions, but we're also required to proactively try to discourage the use of cluster munitions by our allies and others who still have not signed on to the convention, particularly to:

(a) encourage states not party to the Convention to ratify, accept, approve, or accede to the Convention; (b) notify the governments of all states not party to the Convention of Canada’s obligations under the Convention; (c) promote the norms the Convention establishes; and (d) discourage states not party to the Convention from using cluster munitions.

These are implicit requirements. We have all agreed that these are ugly, nasty weapons, that we don't want to use them, and we don't intend to use them when we're in single operations. At the same time, we also all agree that we should make an active effort to discourage other countries from doing it, yet there didn't seem to be a mechanism within Bill C-6 to provide for that engagement by Canada as a country.

When I spoke about this amendment last time, we got some expert advice from the clerk's office that you cannot, in a sense, obligate the minister to comply, and so we added a final subclause 22.1(2), “(2) For greater certainty, a failure by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to comply with subsection (1) is not an offence”—just to make it very clear—“and, accordingly, the Criminal Code does not apply.”

We would not want to make the minister a criminal if he did not report annually to Parliament, so that was essentially the amendment we brought in to our amendment. Essentially it addresses the issue of reporting to Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're going to now move to amendment BQ-2, which is inadmissible. I don't see our Bloc members here, but it was deemed moved.

I'm just going to read the ruling here: That Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which provides for exceptions to the prohibitions list in clause 6 of the bill.... One of these exceptions could be found in subclause 11(2), which does not prohibit a person from doing certain acts listed in clause 6. The amendment proposes to alter the wording from “does not prohibit” to “prohibits”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill as it negates an exception provided in subclause 11(2) of the bill. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.

So that will be the ruling that I have on that one.

We've got amendment BQ-3, which is also been deemed to be inadmissible. I will once again read the ruling here.

That Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which provides for exceptions to the prohibitions listed in clause 6 of the bill.... One of these exceptions can be found in subclause 11(3), which does not prohibit a person from doing certain acts listed in clause 6. The amendment proposes to alter the wording from “does not prohibit” to “prohibits”.

As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Once again, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill as it negates an exception provided in subclause 11(3) of the bill.

Thank you very much for your indulgence on that.

We're now going to move to amendment LIB-4.

Mr. Garneau, if you'd like to read that and discuss that for us.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ours is fairly straightforward and simple, and hopefully, we'll get support from everyone on this:

That Bill C-6, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 6 with the following:

(c) acquiring or possessing a cluster

It removes in (c) the word “using”, which we hope goes some of the way to alleviating the concerns that the oppositions have. We believe this would prohibit the direct use of cluster munitions by CF personnel on exchange as a matter of law. We believe it needs to stay in paragraph 11(1)(b) in order to ensure that our members are not held criminally liable while performing their jobs, and the word “use” must remain in those two sections to ensure that our members are protected from the offensive indirect use. I'll leave it at that, and perhaps if anyone wants the experts to explain a bit more of the implications of this, they can. But we think this is a good balance in trying to reach out to the opposition and come at least part way to the position that they've held.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to thank everyone. Welcome back.

Orders of the day, pursuant to the orders of reference of Friday, October 25, Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I want to thank our guests. We are just keeping cards now, so we have a place for you back there.

Mr. Ram, Ms. Nolke, and Colonel Chris Penny, thank you for coming back.

Last week, we agreed to hold back on clause 11 and then come back to it.

Where we're at right now, if we just—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To understand it a little more, when I look at clauses 7 and 8, there are provisions there in terms of designation.

But I'm still trying to understand. If we look at previous manifestations—what I'm taking from is the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, wherein it's similar in terms of scope and in terms of duty and authority. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two.

I guess what you're saying is that Bill C-6 lays it out in previous clauses, so that when we get to delegation of authority under clause 15 of this bill it's general because it was already defined previously.

Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like some clarification on clause 15. There is language that I want some help with, where it says: A minister may delegate to any person, subject to any conditions that the minister considers appropriate, any powers, duties or functions conferred on the minister under this act.

My question has to do with its fairly general scope. We've seen in previous manifestations on this kind of legislation that it's much more defined. We've seen delegation of responsibilities in previous legislation that enacted treaties similar to this one that:

The Minister may designate one or more persons to exercise the powers, and perform the duties and functions, of the Minister under this Act or the Convention that are specified in the designation. That person or those persons may exercise those powers and shall perform those functions subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as are specified in the designation.

I'm giving you that, Mr. Chair, because I want to understand better the fact that what we have in Bill C-6 is very general in the scope of delegation of powers. When we're talking about a treaty as important as this one and we look back to previous treaties where we've had legislation to enact those treaties, the delegation responsibility is much more refined.

What I'm looking for here is to better understand why the delegation of authority is so general.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I may, I'd like to say a few words about this, because it also introduces the notion of active assistance. The amendment we are proposing here draws on the language of Canada's legislation banning land mines to bring clause 11 of Bill C-6 to what we consider to be in line with article 21 of the convention.

Although our preferred policy would be for Canada to insist that cluster bombs not be used at all in multinational operations Canada participates in, we accept the fact that Canadian Forces may end up working with other countries that use cluster munitions. In these cases, we believe the appropriate policy is to inform our allies that Canada will not participate in the use of cluster munitions while simultaneously protecting our soldiers from legal prosecution for working with these other countries.

The words “active assistance” we believe accomplish this by making it clear that Canadian Forces cannot knowingly or intentionally assist with the use of cluster munitions but that they are protected from prosecution should they unknowingly or unintentionally assist with the use of cluster munitions.

When Minister Baird came, he made it clear at the committee that he never wants to see Canadian Forces use cluster munitions. Government members of this committee have stated that they see clause 11 not as permission to use cluster munitions but really as intended to be a protection for Canadian soldiers in joint operations.

We believe the wording we are proposing in this amendment is a better reflection of the government's own stated position that it does not want to see Canadians using cluster munitions but that it does want to protect Canadians in combined operations with countries that may use cluster munitions. That is what is behind the proposal we're putting forward as amendment LIB-3.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much for your intervention, Mr. Fortin.

I'm just going to read why it is inadmissible.

Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions provides for exceptions to prohibitions listed in clause 6 of the bill. One of these exceptions could be found in subclause 11(1), which does not prohibit some specified individuals from doing certain acts listed in clause 6.

The amendment proposes to alter the wording from “does not prohibit” to “prohibits”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition , states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill as it negates an exception provided in subclause 11(1) of the bill. Therefore the amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to move to amendment LIB-3. Mr. Garneau, I'll turn the floor over to you for your amendment.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I'd like to mention that amendment BQ-2 and amendment BQ-3 are consistent with amendment BQ-1. I'll explain the principle underlying what I am proposing to the committee today.

The Bloc Québecois is glad that Bill C-6 was brought forward and sincerely hopes it will live up to the objectives laid out in the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Keep in mind that the importance of the convention cannot be understated. It prohibits the use of cluster bombs and establishes a framework for their destruction. The prohibitions that have to be included in the bill before us today, a bill to implement the convention, must be firm and comprehensive, while following through on Canada's commitment to never again use cluster bombs, a veritable scourge for civilian populations.

Unfortunately, we think clause 11 of the bill weakens the legislation and, to some extent, spoils its intent by setting out an exception for members of the Canadian Armed Forces participating in joint military operations. The reality is these members of the military could contravene the very spirit of the convention that Canada has signed. As we see it, the exception is so broad that it practically guts the bill of its substance and significance. Simply consider the fact that nearly all the armed conflicts Canada has played a role in recently have involved joint military operations with international troops, either under NATO or with partners who have yet to ratify the convention. Earlier, Ms. May said she hoped that all of our partners, all governments, would end up ratifying the convention. Canada has taken part in missions abroad, both NATO-led and others, and some of Canada's partners have stated their intention not to ratify the convention. In short, those operations, especially with the U.S., could put Canada in contravention of the very spirit of the convention it signed.

In its current form, Bill C-6 is merely window dressing because it has been gutted of any real meaning. And that is why we are proposing three amendments. They would amend the first sentence of each of the subsections in clause 11 and completely transform it, turning the exceptions, which currently allow for the continued use of cluster bombs, into explicit prohibitions, as required by the Convention on Cluster Munitions. With our three amendments, Bill C-6 could actually do what it is supposed to: implement the convention. It wouldn't simply be a public relations exercise to the detriment of civilians who are killed every day by cluster bombs.

Mr. Chair, I will wrap up my remarks with a brief comment so as not to take up too much more of the committee's time. I heard what the experts had to say earlier. I realize their arguments are well thought out, but Canada has a role to fulfill. As it contributes to operations abroad and passes legislation to implement the convention, Canada must show it is mindful of the situation and serve as an example to other nations involved in joint military operations. With a tougher piece of legislation, Canada could set the example for the rest of our international partners.

I urge the committee members to adopt my three amendments, which will give the bill the teeth it needs to do what it is intended to.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 25, 2013, Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, we're going to get started with that today.

I want to welcome our witnesses back again today.

We've got Sabine Nolke, who's the director general, who was here before. Welcome back.

We've got Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Penny. Welcome back, sir.

And, of course, we've got, from the Department of Justice, Christopher Ram.

They'll be there to answer any questions we may have.

Before we get started, we just submitted a couple of budgets. One is for this committee, which is for $3,300 for witnesses we had here for Bill C-6. I just want to ask the question, if we could get that approved.

All in favour?

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, and thank you to our witnesses today. I have one question about something that's been bothering me a wee bit ever since I realized it. The UN Security Council removed the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over acts of current or former officials or personnel from states that contributed to the UN stabilization force and multinational force in Liberia, unless a contributing state consents to the ICC exercising jurisdiction.

This was Resolution 1497 of the Security Council in 2003. Nobody voted against it and there were three abstentions. This is an example of international law recognizing the importance of protecting citizens and armed forces from being tried for crimes in precarious situations where they are being sent to aid stabilization and peacekeeping efforts.

Would you argue that the spirit of clause 11 of Bill C-6, which would allow for the protection of Canadian Armed Forces personnel when aiding our allies in joint missions, is any different?

[Prof. Virgil Wiebe, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Virgil Wiebe. I'm a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law here in Minneapolis. I appear in my personal capacity.

As a Mennonite, I’ve been blessed to walk in the steps of people who have been raising their voices about cluster munitions since the 1960s and 1970s. By 1975, when the Vietnam War ended, the threat from unexploded ordnance like millions of this small “bombie” or bomblet was already becoming clear throughout the region. I commend the written submission of Mennonite Central Committee Canada as it recounts their experience working with people most affected by unexploded bomblets, especially in Laos. In particular, their calls for legislative implementation of positive obligations should be heeded. Also, as a board member of Mines Advisory Group America, I have travelled to Lebanon and seen firsthand the aftermath of massive cluster munition use there.

As a scholar, I followed the Oslo treaty process closely, including attending the final negotiations in Dublin. I then joined a team of scholars and diplomats to write the Oxford commentary on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, published in 2010. I focused my efforts on the history of cluster munition use and article 1 of the treaty. I also contributed to the chapter on article 21 of the treaty.

Now, to get quickly to a few points. First, clause 11 of Bill C-6 is not simply a restatement of article 21 of the treaty, but it veers in the direction of violating both the letter and spirit of the treaty. The provisions of clause 11 are not unquestionably allowed by the convention. They go beyond any other national legislation in implementing protections for national service members. Quite breathtakingly, clause 11 sanctions the use, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions by Canadian Forces in certain circumstances. A written submission I made last week and also an open letter that was submitted to Minister Baird last year by 26 Canadian scholars spelled out how clause 11 goes well beyond the text of the convention, its context, its object, and its purpose.

In particular, it's important to note that article 21.1 and article 21.2 require Canada to encourage other states to join the treaty and to make best efforts to discourage other states from using cluster munitions.

The principles of treaty construction call for a much narrower interpretation of articles 21.3 and 21.4 than is done in Bill C-6. One example of treaty interpretation tools is that names matter. Article 21 is named “Relations with States not party to this Convention.” During the negotiations in Dublin the drafts of what would become article 21 were called “Proposals on Interoperability.” It was therefore no accident when the final name of the article became “Relations with states not party”. The emphasis was not on interoperability; indeed, that word appears nowhere in the treaty, but on relations with states not party and how to pull them into compliance and even membership in the treaty as well as how to discourage them from using cluster munitions.

Second, existing Canadian law already provides protection for unknowing or unwitting actions by Canadian Forces in joint operations. Last week, General Walter Natynczyk was asked a great question: what would happen to Canadian service members who were in a joint operation and unknowingly or unwittingly participated in the use of cluster munitions if this legislation did not exist? His reply was that:

...Canadian Forces must abide by the law of the land and the code of service discipline applies with criminal law. So therefore that individual or individuals could be subject to prosecution.

With all due respect to the general, I submit that he was wrong. Someone in that situation would not have needed section 11 in order to avoid prosecution. Under both the Code of Service Discipline and the Canadian Criminal Code, offences with the prospect of imprisonment require some mens rea element.

My reading of the prohibition section of Bill C-6, in the context of existing Canadian law—and I'm reading clause 6 of the bill—is that a prosecutor would have to prove that the person in question had the purpose, intent, knowledge, or at least recklessness to commit an offence spelled out in clause 6 of the bill. That person would have been protected from criminal prosecution for his or her unknowing and unintentional assistance in the use of cluster munitions under existing law, without the protection of clause 11.

Thirdly, creating exceptions for the use of cluster munitions may have long-term negative effects on the service members who use or assist in the use of cluster munitions. On the one hand, to, as a nation, condemn cluster bombs while on the other hand then allowing some to use them may well create a profound moral dilemma for those persons during and following conflict.

A colleague of mine has studied the early medieval church and how it grappled with this notion of legally sanctioned but morally repugnant acts. It did so by creating elaborate systems of penance following a soldier’s return from war. We have similar situations now. Some of those who have used and assisted in the use of cluster munitions have later experienced profound guilt and regret. Some have sought absolution and redemption by engaging in the equivalent of penance, including engaging in unexploded ordnance clearance, even decades after the events in question.

Fourthly, there is state responsibility. Excusing individuals for otherwise criminal activity does not necessarily excuse Canadian state responsibility for acts carried out by a Canadian state organ. Principles of state responsibility attribute to Canada actions by representatives of Canada where Canada maintains direction and control of those personnel.

To conclude, I have learned a few terms from the psychologists and social workers with whom I work.

One of those words is “enabler”, which has been defined as one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behaviour by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behaviour.

Through clause 11 of Bill C-6Canada is enabling potentially destructive and unhelpful behaviour by its allies, like the United States, and maybe even by Canada.

On the other hand, a “psychological intervention” has been defined as a concrete action that tries to introduce some changes in a given situation, usually planned and devised according to some previous theory, and adapted to the here-and-now peculiarities.

Canada’s cluster munition legislation should act as the intervention needed for states not party to the convention. It should embrace article 21 in its entirety and use paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 21 to pull countries like the United States in the right direction.

As for what should be done, I can offer some specific suggestions in response to questions. Many of these responses, I acknowledge, I will take from the written submissions from groups like Mines Action Canada, the Harvard human rights clinic, the Canadian Red Cross, and others.

Thank you very much.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Drolet, ideally, we would have heard from cluster munition victims. There aren't any on our list of witnesses. In your view, what would they have to say about Canada's position and Bill C-6? Have you included that in your comments or do you have something to add?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the one hand we have the government, as expressed by Madam Brown, saying that yes, we decry the use of cluster munitions, as we all do around the table here. But unfortunately it is not willing to reassess the interpretation of article 21 of the convention. Certainly my party has been very clear in taking the position that Canada should clearly state that it will not participate in a particular joint operation with an ally such as the United States that could use cluster munitions in a particular joint operation.

Yes, we will work with our allies, all the time, in lots of other things, but not if they say they could use cluster munitions in a particular operation. I don't believe that kind of caveat is going to harm our relationship with our allies in any way whatsoever. We're much stronger than that in our relationship with the United States, and have proven it over the years. We are a very stalwart and reliable ally. On top of that it would show dramatically that Canada is actively working to rid the world of this indiscriminate and horrible weapon. We all agree on that.

However, I have to say that it's my impression that the current government is unwilling to take that position of international leadership. That unfortunately is the situation. Therefore, it all boils down to the interpretation of article 21 of the convention. In his submission to the committee, Earl Turcotte, who was the Canadian chief negotiator for the Convention on Cluster Munitions, said that Bill C-6's interpretation of article 21, mostly reflected in clause 11 of Bill C-6, is complete and utter nonsense. This is the guy who helped write it for Canada.

In his view, article 21 does not allow Canada to use cluster munitions in joint operations. Again, this is coming from the guy who was part of writing the convention. This is the interpretation we took when we wrote the convention.

I'd like to ask our two witnesses, starting with Monsieur Drolet, what do you think of a country that makes specific commitments when it's negotiating the convention and then reneges on them when it's about to ratify the convention?

[Marc Drolet, Executive Director, Handicap International Canada]

First of all, thank you so much for inviting us today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you.

Co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Handicap International is an independent aid organization that celebrated its 30th anniversary last year. Our organization also received the Conrad Hilton humanitarian prize in 2011 for the quality of its field operations.

Handicap International is on the front line in over 60 countries, including Haiti, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Sierra Leone, and Laos, working alongside the disabled and vulnerable experiencing poverty and exclusion, particularly in situations of conflict and disaster.

Cluster munitions are unreliable and indiscriminate deadly weapons that kill and maim people long after the conflict has ended. We call this the “war after the war”. Credible estimates establish the number of casualties directly attributable to cluster munitions at more than 50,000, most of them innocent civilians, as you know. There is no control over the end target of these munitions, and therefore no means to ensure a distinction between military and civilian targets. Accordingly, it is not surprising that recent research has shown that more than 90% of the reported casualties are civilian, and about half of them are children.

Our roles include being with the victims in the field, offering them support with their disability, trying to facilitate their social reintegration, and helping to clear the littered areas of unexploded munitions, a risky, time-consuming, and costly task. This means that we realize daily at Handicap International realize how horrendous this weapon really is.

I have no doubt that everyone in this room is aware of the devastating long-term physical, psychological, and economic consequences of cluster munitions. I expect we also all agree on the critical importance of the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, and by all means the need for Canada to ratify it.

Handicap International commends the Government of Canada for initiating the current ratification process as reflected in Bill C-6. Handicap International is pleased to note that several clauses of the bill lay out clear and unambiguous prohibitions. At the same time we are concerned with some exceptions and omissions that go against the very purpose of the convention. Especially troublesome are exemptions in the bill for interoperability, and the absence of prohibitions on financing and investment.

With regard to interoperability, Handicap International understands and respects the government's preoccupation with ensuring that Canadian Forces continue to be involved in joint military operations with Canada's allies, some of whom are not party to the convention. This legitimate preoccupation is in fact explicitly addressed by the convention in the way that does not limit Canada's right to cooperate with other nations not party to it. Handicap International's concern with the exceptions set out in the bill is not that they might allow Canadian Forces to participate in joint military operations with allies not party to the convention, but rather that they are not necessary and would do the following.

Firstly, they would allow such participation even if cluster munitions were used, and even give Canadian military personnel the latitude to expressly request and direct the use of cluster munitions as per paragraph 11.1(b).

Secondly, they would grant Canadian Forces explicit permission to use, acquire, and possess cluster munitions while on attachment, exchange, or secondment as per paragraph 11.1(c).

Thirdly, they would allow Canadian Forces to aid and abet a person using cluster munitions while in combined operations as long as it would not be an offence for that other person to commit that act as per paragraph 11.3(a).

Proponents of this approach evoke article 21 of the convention to reconcile their position with the treaty. This overlooks the fact that article 21, while permitting military cooperation and operations between state parties to and state parties not to the convention, includes other paragraphs that place explicit obligations on state parties to the convention to actively discourage the use of cluster munitions.

Article 21 must be construed to be consistent with and reflect the obligations spelled out in article 1 of the convention to never assist anyone undertaking a prohibited act. After all, how could the convention both require the discouragement of the use of cluster munitions and at the same time allow facilitation of their use?

Handicap International is of the opinion, on the one hand, that it would be important to explicitly state that a member of the Canadian Armed Forces does not commit an offence against the law merely by engaging, in the course of his or her duties, in operations, exercises, or other military activities with the armed forces of a state not party to the convention, and which has the capability to engage in conduct prohibited by the convention. Such a statement is important to avoid criminal charges against members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have no knowledge that their action may result in the use of cluster munitions by other parties.

On the other hand, despite this qualification, it would also be important to explicitly state that whatever the circumstances, the men and women serving in the Canadian Forces will not direct, request, aid, and abet the use of cluster munitions or use, acquire, and possess such weapons.

Handicap International's position on this issue is based not only on the opinion of experts, but also on the legislative instruments developed by some 30 countries, including NATO allies such as France, Norway, Portugal, Hungary, and Belgium, as well as other countries such as New Zealand, Switzerland, and Sweden.

The legislative framework developed by these countries does not give their armed forces license to engage in activities prohibited by the convention, therefore demonstrating that such license is not at all necessary to enable effective participation in joint military operations with states not party to the convention.

Also problematic—and this is another issue completely aside from interoperability—is the fact that Bill C-6 does specify that the prohibition on assistance applies to direct and indirect investments in the production of cluster munitions and their components. More than 25 countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and France, have taken the position that investment in cluster munitions development or production is a form of assistance prohibited by the convention, particularly when there is an intention that the investment be used, or even the knowledge that it is to be used, for such a purpose. Canada should follow suit.

In conclusion, the Convention on Cluster Munitions represents a historic step in international humanitarian law meant above all to prevent casualities among innocent civilian populations. Bill C-6 should be strengthened to ensure that everything possible is done to promote the spirit and achieve the purpose of the Oslo Convention. Some qualifications may be necessary, but they should be narrow in scope, and certainly not be contrary to the objectives of the convention. As currently drafted, the bill could, paradoxically, very well contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than their elimination as intended.

The good news, as demonstrated by so many other countries, including some of Canada's closest allies, is that the exceptions and omissions we have flagged are not needed to achieve truly balanced legislation that both protects innocent civilians and allows, among other things, Canada's participation in joint military operations.

On behalf of Handicap International I would like to thank you for this opportunity for your time and questions.

Thank you.

I can also answer your questions in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good afternoon everyone. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 25, 2013, we are resuming our consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I want to welcome our witnesses and introduce first those who are here with us at the House of Commons. From Handicap International Canada, we have Marc Drolet, the executive director. Welcome Marc, I'm glad to have you here today. Then we have Jérôme Bobin, the manager of communications and mobilization. Welcome, sir, to you as well.

Then, joining us via video conference from Geneva, Switzerland, we have Amélie Chayer, a policy analyst with the Cluster Munition Coalition. Welcome Ms. Chayer. I think you're six hours ahead, so you're well into the evening. You're at almost 10 o'clock, so thank you very much for joining us.

Why don't we start here, with Handicap International? Then we'll turn it over to Ms. Chayer. We will then go back and forth across the room asking questions and probably get in a couple of rounds.

So over to Handicap International for your opening statement.

[Prof. Walter Dorn, Professor, Royal Military College of Canada, Department of Defence Studies, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this important committee.

I gave the same remarks in 1995 with respect to the Chemical Weapon Convention. In addition, I was present in Parliament when the Ottawa convention banning antipersonnel mines was ratified.

At the Canadian Forces College, I teach officers from 20 countries about arms control and international UN law. I work as a consultant for the UN and have taken part in peacekeeping operations.

As with landmines, we all agree it's high time that the world send cluster munitions to the trash bin of history. To achieve this ban, the treaty is categorical in its first article that a state party may “never under any circumstances” use or assist in the use of these inhumane weapons. Canada's long-overdue ratification of the 2008 convention is welcome as the country takes its place among the progressive nations demonstrating humanitarian concern, but the implementing legislation, Bill C-6, contains one completely out-of-place clause. I appreciate that the government is willing to hear the arguments against clause 11 and to consider eliminating or amending the obnoxious paragraphs.

Who would want Canadians to use cluster munitions, aid and abet, direct or request their use, or conspire with another person to use these indiscriminate weapons? Yet this wording is in the legislation itself to allow for the so-called cooperation with a non-party, which we know to be aimed at the possible cooperation with the United States. Besides being abhorrent, the problems with the approach are twofold.

First, it is against the spirit and I am convinced the letter of the treaty. Article 21, paragraph 3 of the treaty is not a basis for and cannot be used to justify the legislation's clause 11. The treaty article only reaffirms that “States Parties...may engage in military cooperation” with states non-party. It allows countries to be a part of a coalition in which some members might use cluster munitions, but it does not give any authorizations for their use by states parties. This understanding of a complete prohibition “under any circumstance” in the convention's primary article is the view of a great many states, international lawyers, civil society organizations, and Canada's main negotiator of the convention, Earl Turcotte, who is in fact one of the primary drafters of article 21.

Another reason to amend clause 11 is that it is not necessary. With deference to General Natynczyk, who has a great deal of experience, I can foresee scenarios whereby some of the problems he might have encountered in Iraq can be overcome. The various scenarios that have been advanced are really exceedingly rare, as we've just heard from him, and can be dealt with in ways that do not contravene the convention and do little damage to interoperability.

For instance, individuals in a chain of command can recuse themselves, that is, temporarily remove themselves, so that a cluster munitions order may skip or detour around the Canadian. General Lessard was telling me about this possibility for the Canadian Forces yesterday. Similarly, if Canadians are in planning or intelligence units, they can recuse themselves from assisting in specific parts dealing with cluster munitions.

Caveats can be entered before participating in a multinational coalition. Such national caveats are common. We were just speaking about this before the providing of testimony and you hear about how the commanders have matrices, Excel spreadsheets with national caveats. It's part of the routine business of working with multinational coalitions to ensure respect for national prerogatives. For instance, if Canadians were in a coalition operation, the U.S. might have to ensure that any U.S. aircraft that could be used for close air support, an example just provided, do not carry only cluster munitions but have other munitions as well, which is normal.

Logistics such as air-to-air refuelling of U.S. planes carrying cluster munitions, or landmines for that matter, can be provided by the U.S. rather than Canada.

Training exercises can be designed so that any cluster munitions used are not done as part of the combined operations, but are completely separate.

By taking these actions, Canada would fulfill the other provisions of article 21 to discourage the use of cluster munitions and to encourage non-parties to accept or accede to the convention, something we can hope the U.S. will do in the near very future.

In any case, under article 21 Canada has an obligation to notify the U.S. of Canadian commitments under the convention.

Since the instances of non-cooperation are very rare, and in fact, the minister the other day said they were infinitesimal, and the humanitarian principles are shared by most of the members of the international community and almost all members of NATO, it is not expected to be a serious impediment to the important military relationship between Canada and the United States. General Natynczyk said that we have full interoperability, yet we still agree to disagree on different issues. Interoperability can be maintained.

Article 21 does give Canada cover when the U.S. uses cluster munitions in a fashion that is beyond Canadian control. Merely being a member of a coalition does not mean Canada is complicit or is assisting with cluster munitions. That is the real value and meaning of article 21.

This approach suggests a better way to design the cooperation section of the implementing legislation, drawing on the standard-setting Canadian legislation passed for the Ottawa treaty. The anti-personnel mines legislation states that Canadians are not prohibited from “participation in operations, exercises or other military activities” with non-parties “if that participation does not amount to active assistance in that prohibited activity”.

This idea of active assistance is what should be the standard. This allows Canadians who are not actively assisting to be free from potential prosecution. That is a better way. It will allow Canada to be a stronger force for international humanitarian law, draw less ire from some of our colleagues and allies, and help the world to finally place these weapons into the trash bin of history's most inhumane weapons.

Thank you, on behalf of humankind.

[Gen Walter Natynczyk, President, Canadian Space Agency, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear today.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to share my personal views on Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. I am here today as an individual, as well as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces and former Chief of the Defence Staff.

As many of you might be aware, I served in uniform for about 37 years. Over the course of my service, I deployed for three years on peacekeeping operations, on stability operations, and on combat duty. I've worn the blue beret with the United Nations in Cyprus, Bosnia, and Croatia. I've been a NATO commander in Bosnia, and I was deployed throughout 2004 as a deputy commanding general of a U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, while on exchange duties with the U.S. Army. I participated in exercises in Europe, the Middle East, and South Korea.

With that perspective, I hope to be able to share my opinions and experiences as they relate to the convention's impact on the Canadian Armed Forces in conducting operations around the world with Canada's closest allies.

Throughout my military career, I saw how the relics of war, even after the guns had gone silent, killed and mutilated the most vulnerable: the young, the disabled and innocent civilians.

I spent my time in Bosnia and Croatia in 1994-95 and I saw the indiscriminate effects of landmines on civilians tilling their fields, children playing near schools, our own Canadian men and women and allied United Nations soldiers who attempted to bring peace and security to those troubled countries.

Similarly, unexploded cluster munitions have a devastating impact on civilian populations long after the conflict has ended. Countries like Vietnam, the entire region, in fact, continue to suffer the effects of cluster bombs dropped during the Vietnam War.

It's because of this heavy cost to civilians that the international community, justifiably, has created this international law to prohibit the use of cluster bomb munitions. I believe this convention is very right and very important to Canada and to the global community to save lives.

Even though the Convention on Cluster Munitions is not yet in force in Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces adopted measures that were in line with the convention during my time as Chief of the Defence Staff.

You'll remember that in 2008, when I approved the interim order, Canadian service men and women were on a NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan and participating on numerous other operations in the Middle East, Africa, Kosovo, and Haiti. Since then our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women also participated in the United Nations-sanctioned and NATO-led mission to protect civilians in Libya.

In each of those theatres of operations, our men and women in uniform were asked to serve in conditions that could be described as unstable, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. And we expect our military leaders, from corporals to generals, to make sound and timely decisions that contribute to a mission's success in the most challenging situations. They are frequently called upon to make decisions in the face of serious time pressures and complex conditions.

I believe that Canadians can be justifiably proud of their armed forces. From my standpoint, man for man, woman for woman, unit for unit, they are among the most professional forces in the world. As a result, our allies want Canadians on their flanks. My experience has been that when a crisis erupts, our allies and partners are immediately requesting the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The challenge is that some of our NATO allies, such as Poland, Turkey and Estonia, as well as some of our international partners, including South Korea and Israel, have chosen not to join the convention. Clearly, each of those countries is dealing with major geostrategic security concerns that we, in Canada, are not faced with.

The United States, our NORAD and NATO ally, also made the decision not to join the convention. While we cooperate closely with their armed forces across the defence and security spectrum, sometimes we must agree to disagree, as is the case with the cluster munitions convention.

I understand that during the negotiation of the convention, Canada and several of our NATO allies championed a clause, I believe it to be article 21 of the convention, that sought to safeguard our ability to cooperate on military operations with countries that are not party to the treaty.

If we had to enforce article 21 of the convention, the exceptions listed in clause 11 of Bill C-6 would protect our men and women in uniform against prosecution, because they would have simply been carrying out their military duties.

From my perspective, I believe article 21 enables our forces to remain fully interoperable with the U.S. armed forces. This comprehensive level of cooperation is a unique strategic advantage for Canada. It is the result of the reality of our joint defence of our continent and a reflection of shared trust, confidence, and values.

The interoperability clause of the convention strikes a fair balance between profound humanitarian principles on the one hand, and Canada's security realities on the other.

l believe it's important for Canada to retain full capability to participate in combined operations with our allies that enhance our national and collective security.

Many Canadian Armed Forces members are currently on secondment or taking part in exchanges with the U.S. military in places like Afghanistan or the continental U.S. These members occasionally support training activities for our Polish allies. They may be posted in Turkey under NATO command or under UN command in South Korea.

My assessment is that the fulfillment of their routine military duties should not expose them to prosecution, for example, for calling in aircraft to save the lives of our soldiers or allowing an aircraft to land on an airfield we control, for air-to-air refuelling of fighter aircraft, for sharing of intelligence, or for authorizing a port visit of a ship.

Having had the exchange experience as the deputy commanding general of the Multi-National Force - Iraq throughout 2004, l can say to you with confidence that l was never aware that cluster bombs were actually stocked in theatre or that l participated in planning for their use or, in fact, authorized their use. I had none of that experience whatsoever.

However, unwittingly l could have done so, and l could have participated in activities, without my knowledge, that assisted in the use of cluster munitions, but l would not have known it at that time.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, it is my personal opinion that these exceptions are necessary to protect members of the Canadian Armed Forces when they are sent into dangerous situations, with the expectation that they will fulfill their duties to protect Canada and its interests.

In my layman's opinion, Bill C-6, as currently drafted, appropriately reflects the Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibitions and exceptions.

l believe it strikes the right balance between our international obligations to rid the world of these destructive weapons, while recognizing Canada's unique security realities, and ensuring a specific legal protection for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces who continue to serve.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call this meeting to order.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking the time to be here today as we look at Bill C-6.

General Natynczyk, we thank you for being here. We will start with you first.

I also want to introduce Dr. Dorn, who is a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

We realize both of you are here as individuals, so thank you for that.

General Natynczyk, why don't we start with you, sir. We'll go with 10 minutes, and up to 10 minutes as well with Dr. Dorn, and then we'll move back and forth over the rest of the hour with questions and answers.

Thanks again for being here. The floor is yours.

[Sabine Nolke]

The basic answer is yes, there could be a prosecution. The provisions in Bill C-6 on the prohibitions are very wide and they include the entire range of Canadian law on aiding and abetting. For example, if you have a military expert who recommends the use of an airstrike, that could be considered counselling if one of the states in the military coalition is armed with cluster munitions. So that would be a potential exposure. The minister mentioned earlier that, if a soldier called in close air support, that could be considered actual use under Canadian law.

So, yes, there is a potential exposure. This is a criminal law bill. It creates criminal offences. These are potentially very wide-ranging because the bill is very ambitious, just as the treaty is very ambitious in the types of conduct it seeks to outlaw. That is why the exemptions are needed: precisely to provide that necessary balance, so that you do not have Canadian soldiers inadvertently caught by those criminal offences.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you. I think we have 30 seconds left.

My colleague has adequately shown that the government’s position is quite ambiguous. This bill does not have enough teeth. It does not provide for enough constraints. I raised this issue at our last committee meeting saying that stakeholders had pointed out that Bill S-10 does not indicate that the prohibition of assistance applies to direct and indirect investments in the production of cluster weapons and their parts. That worries me, especially since more than 25 countries already agree that the investment would be a form of assistance prohibited by conventions.

At our last meeting, the witness from the Department of Justice said that the act of helping or encouraging someone to commit a crime is automatically handled through the Criminal Code. Why do you refuse to clearly mention in Bill C-6 that the direct or indirect funding for the production of weapons is prohibited when 25 countries in the world have already done so?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And please allow me to be blunt, Minister Baird. With all due respect, I believe that the position you have taken and that is embodied in Bill C-6 is a morally ambiguous position.

I found you to be very eloquent last Friday when you spoke in the House of Commons, when you were asked about these, and I found you to be eloquent in the first half of your speech today when you talked about the effects of cluster munitions and about why they're so horrific.

And why are they so horrific? Let me add my voice to this, because everybody has said it. It's because they kill innocent civilians for decades after they are deployed. You are clearly very aware of it.

The reason I am disappointed with your speech today—and I'm referring to the second part of the speech—is that you have provided a loophole. You have not shown Canada taking a position of leadership on this issue. You have invoked the fact that it is important for us to work with our allies and that Canada's safety would be jeopardized if we were to remove that interoperability clause.

I don't buy that for one second. Cluster munitions are one of an array of tactical weapons used in the battlefield. They are not the only weapon that is available for conflicts. As such, I don't believe the safety of Canada in joint operations that we might participate in offshore with our allies requires their use.

I would like to propose an amendment to you. That amendment would be that, although Canada continues, of course, to be a very strong ally of the United States and other countries, some of which may not have ratified the convention, if we are going to become involved in a conflict along with some of our allies who may still have arsenals of cluster weapons, we make our participation with them conditional by saying yes, we will participate, but only if you undertake not to use cluster weapons in those joint operations.

Is this something you would be prepared to consider?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Bill C-6 has evoked comparison with the Ottawa convention that bans the use of land mines. Some have noted that Bill C-6 should adopt the exact same approach as the Ottawa convention.

I recognize that there are stark differences between the two, such as the nature of the two weapons in question. I was wondering whether you could kindly share with this committee the reason that the government has not adopted the Ottawa convention as the model for Bill C-6.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk to you about Bill C-6 today. As you know, the Oslo convention prohibits the use of cluster munitions. Canada was one of the first countries to sign the convention in 2008. The convention also prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer of cluster weapons.

Let me state clearly and unequivocally at the outset: the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo convention into domestic law will allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share the same goal. It is worth spending a few minutes on making sure that we are very clear on what we are talking about and just what is at stake.

By definition, cluster bombs involve the scattering of many small submunitions or bomblets over a wide area from a singular container. I have some examples. These are obviously mock-ups, which I can show around the room on how problematic these are. The challenge is that when these bombs rain down on an area, they all don't explode. That is problematic after the cessation of hostilities.

I have some examples here. I will ask my office staff to pass them around so that members can get a clear idea of what we are talking about.

Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo convention into domestic law will allow Canada to join the growing number of countries in this regard. It is worth spending a few minutes on making sure we are very clear on what we're talking about and what's at stake. I have brought a few replicas with me, and we're passing them around the room.

Unexploded bomblets can pose a continuing threat to civilians long after the military action in which they are used. It is difficult to find these bomblets and it is dangerous to remove them. The unintended human toll exacted by these weapons is significant, and it is a human tragedy.

I urge committee members to look closely at these images and these replicas. There is little difference in the eyes of a child between these round bomblets and a schoolyard ball. A child sees what looks like a harmless ribbon, or a can to collect stones or to use in any other way that their young imaginations can think of.

Anyone who has ever met with victims of cluster bombs or who has heard their tragic stories cannot remain indifferent to their plight. I am sure that many of you around this table have had the opportunity to see how grave their situation is when you have travelled abroad.

My own experiences have deeply moved me. For instance, last month, I went to Laos in response to the country’s call for international assistance. Laos has to disarm a staggering 80 million unexploded bomblets that were dropped during the Vietnam War. The war ended four decades ago, but its deadly aftermath continues to be felt. Without our assistance, there would still be deadly consequences. Words are not enough to describe the extent of human costs caused by cluster bombs.

Cluster munitions like this have been used in nearly two dozen armed conflicts around the world since the Second World War. Tragically, they are still being used today. This map shows the status of stockpiles around the world.

Almost 90% of the victims of cluster munitions last year were killed or maimed in the war in Syria. Despite this, there are encouraging signs that global momentum is growing to stop their production, use, and transfer.

The Oslo convention, which was negotiated in 2008, reflects widespread concerns about the impact of these weapons and provides a framework for putting an end to them. Canada was among the 108 countries that proudly signed the convention in Oslo.

Enacting the bill before you would allow Canada to legally ratify the convention and to become a state party. I think we're clear about the reality of these weapons, and I hope I can say that all of us are committed to working towards a world where they will no longer exist.

Now let's look at the reality of making this happen. The fact is, not all states are ready to ratify the Oslo convention, as we are. Interestingly, Laos, where I visited, is one of the countries that is not ready, despite being one of the first countries to sign the landmines convention.

Among those parties is the United States, Canada's closest ally and the country with which we have the closest defence and security relationship of any two states on earth. That cooperation is of central importance to Canada's national security. In this uncertain world, to walk away from generations of a unique and privileged partnership would undermine the safety of Canadians within our own continent, and it would weaken our ability to contribute to peace and security internationally.

A lot has been said about article 21 of the convention. This article permits the armed forces of states parties to conduct operations or serve in exchanges with the armed forces of non-states parties.

Not having this would have significantly undermined Canada's ability to operate in coalitions and to maintain alliance relationships. Canada and a number of our close allies would not have been in a position to sign the convention. The United Kingdom and Australia, for example, have adopted similar measures in their legislation, and for similar reasons.

Of course, I wish that article 21 were not necessary, and maybe one day it will not be. I would prefer a world in which all of our allies had signed and ratified this convention, but the reality is that we're not there yet.

Canada's unique defence collaboration with the United States takes many forms: information sharing, logistics support, joint exercises, and combined operations, to name just a few. There is no doubt that it is absolutely crucial in meeting our broader defence needs.

This close cooperation could lead to members of our armed forces finding themselves in a situation whereby the provisions of Bill C-6 might apply to them while they're simply doing the job that they are trained to do and that we ask them to do. For example, Bill C-6, because of its scope, could apply to situations where Canadian Armed Forces members call in air support when under attack, or refuel an aircraft, or even just engage in military planning or the sharing of intelligence.

Remember: this is a criminal law bill. And it is a criminal law bill that is ambitious in the scope of what it will criminalize. Without these exceptions, which are permitted by the convention itself—and I want to underline this: which are permitted by the convention itself—our servicemen and -women could be held criminally responsible for doing the tough and often incredibly risky jobs they have volunteered for.

We do not want that, and I'm sure you don't want that either, so out of concern for our soldiers, I believe that this carefully balanced approach we have taken is something that we can all support.

Let me be clear that Bill C-6 enshrines the prohibitions outlined within the convention and the permitted exceptions to those prohibitions as set out in article 21—nothing more, nothing less.

Let me make something else perfectly clear. No Canadian soldier will use cluster munitions, ever. I want to repeat that: no Canadian soldier will use cluster munitions, ever. A directive from the Chief of the Defence Staff will see to that. When this bill is passed, we can task that directive.

Let's have a look at the reality of our defence relationship with the United States and the extent to which these exclusions might apply in practice.

There are over 67,000 members of Canada's regular forces and more than 28,000 in the reserves. Each day, hundreds of these members are taking advantage of our friendship with the United States through training, exchanges, or secondment within the U.S. military. These secondments improve the security and safety of all Canadians. Within these secondments, it would be a very, very rare scenario in which a Canadian Armed Forces member might—might—be directly implicated in the use of cluster munitions by U.S. forces.

For example, at this time, there are fewer than five Canadians in command positions in multilateral operations, fewer than five single members of the Canadian Forces. The slide here gives you a sense of what we're talking about; the little red Canadian stick man is actually disproportionately large, but we couldn't make it any smaller.

As you can see, the principal offences in the bill would affect only a tiny, tiny number of personnel and operations, but the bill also has to include aiding, abetting, counselling, and other forms of indirect involvement. It is these interpretations that could potentially extend to many more personnel if we don't protect them.

I am proud to be able to say that Canada has never produced cluster munitions and we've never used them in Canadian-led operations.

I can also say that even though we're not yet a state party to the convention, the Department of National Defence has already begun the process of destroying Canada's remaining cluster munitions.

These munitions were acquired many, many years ago, dating back to the seventies. Given that they're older, they're probably the ones we should be most worried about. Obviously the failure rate of the explosion of the droplets would be even higher than the ones they make today. These munitions were withdrawn from service several years ago. They are secure, and they will be destroyed with Canadian oversight as soon as possible.

So as weapons of war, cluster munitions in Canada are a thing of the past. It is actions like these that will make a real difference to the horrific impact of cluster munitions.

Our actions are by no means limited to this bill. During my visit to Laos, I announced a further donation by Canada of $1 million to help Laos deal with this horrendous remnant of a long-lost past war.

I want to put it in context. In Laos today there are 80 million of these droplets and land mines that are unexploded: 80 million. And Laos is a very geographically small country. The horrors of people scavenging for the metal to recycle and earn money, or children playing.... They had a mock-up at the Cope headquarters I visited of a typical home where many household lamps and other things used metal from these ordnances, most unexploded but some not. To think that these weapons were used in our lifetime is horrific.

Since 2006 Canada has contributed more than $200 million worldwide to help remove such deadly legacies of conflict, but we can do more and we must do more. Looking forward, I will be allocating up to $10 million in new support over the next 18 months.

The great benefit of this is that not only are we clearing areas, land masses, of these weapons, but when that land is cleared, people are safer and the land is now accessible for agricultural production. It's really a win-win proposition.

Canada will continue its proud tradition of support for demining efforts, victim assistance, and risk awareness programs. We will also be making contributions to support advocacy and outreach effort to non-state actors in support of the Oslo convention. Canada will continue to engage in outreach activities to promote the convention and its objectives at the diplomatic level.

We will make sure that Canada's voice is heard loudly and clearly on this issue, but we need to be a state party to have the credibility to do that. This bill is the right thing to do and the right way to do it. I call on the committee to work with us. Let us not allow our differences to stand in the way of advancing these important goals.

I want to say this: I have appreciated the opportunity to speak with a few government members and with critics from both the official opposition and the Liberal Party. I think we share the desire to tackle this problem. I look forward to your having the hearings, where you'll learn more about this. I will be ready, as always, to listen to the deliberations from all members and to your views on these issues.

I did want to come out and very clearly say two things. One, we take this issue incredibly seriously. Two, I have taken the time, that a number of you requested, to have quite a challenge function with members of the Canadian Forces to drill down on what is absolutely necessary for the article 21 exemption. I understand you'll be having some other witnesses, and I look forward to hearing a report on their testimony.

I'll be very pleased to take your questions and comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Perhaps we can get started on our second meeting here.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 25, 2013, we are considering Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I want to welcome Minister Baird back to the table. As well, I want to welcome his department here. We have Sabine Nolke, the is director general of the non-proliferation and security threat reduction bureau. Welcome back to the committee.

From the Department of National Defence, we have Brigadier-General Charles Lamarre, the director general of operations of the joint staff. Welcome, sir.

We have from the Department of Justice, Christopher Ram, the legal counsel. Welcome back to you as well.

Minister Baird, I'll just turn the floor over to you. You have 10 minutes for your opening statement. I understand that you have a PowerPoint presentation to go through, and then we'll go back and forth with questions like we did in the last hour.

The floor is yours, sir.

Foreign Affairs

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, government officials confirmed yesterday that Bill C-6 would still allow Canadian personnel to authorize the use of cluster munitions. People are concerned this could undermine the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Seventeen NATO countries have already ratified the treaty without this kind of exception.

Will the government work with us to close the loopholes in the bill?

[LCol Chris Penny]

I don't have much to add to that, except to note that there is a provision in both the convention and Bill C-6 that would prevent a Canadian in that position from expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions, should the choice of munitions used be within the exclusive control of the Canadian armed forces. The circumstances that may arise, and would more often arise, in a multinational operation would be that Canada would not have exclusive control over the choice of munitions used by other states because their choice of munitions is made as a sovereign decision of theirs, and they are participating in that operation as an ally.

So there are certainly circumstances where, if a Canadian had exclusive control over these, he or she would be prohibited from it, and Canadians would be prohibited themselves from using cluster munitions in any event because those are policy decisions clearly within the exclusive control of Canada.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The convention's preamble states that a state party should never assist anyone to engage in a prohibited activity and should discourage the use of cluster munitions.

We have already heard witnesses in the Senate and stakeholders say that Bill S-10 did not specify that the prohibition to assist applied to direct and indirect investments in the production of cluster munitions and their components.

Although 25 countries—including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and France—have adopted a position whereby investment in the production of cluster munitions is seen as a type of assistance prohibited by the convention, Canada does not seem willing to follow suit.

Could you comment on this government's position? Should that matter be clarified in Bill C-6?

[BGen Charles Lamarre, Director General of Operations, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you very much, sir.

Members of Parliament, I am pleased to be here today with Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Penny from the office of the judge advocate general. Lieutenant-Colonel Penny was a member of the Canadian delegation that negotiated this convention, and he has since assisted with its domestic implementation.

We are here to discuss the role of the Department of National Defence and of the Canadian armed forces in supporting Canada's efforts to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Mr. Chair, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to the objective and purpose of the convention and to implementing all of its provisions. In this context, it is important to note that we have never used cluster munitions in any of our Canadian Armed Forces-led operations, and we are in the process of destroying our remaining stockpiles.

Bill C-6 was crafted carefully to reflect this commitment and to give effect to those obligations required by the convention within the domestic Canadian legislation. In short, it allows us to implement the convention, to meet our broader defence needs, to remain a strong and reliable ally, and to continue to contribute meaningfully on the international stage.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions itself strikes a necessary balance between humanitarian considerations and national security imperatives, and Bill C-6 reflects this balance. Bill C-6 was written in a clear and unambiguous way, which ensures that members of the Canadian armed forces understand the convention's obligations and its permitted exceptions.

In particular, direct use of cluster munitions during Canadian armed forces operations will be banned without exception. At the same time, as permitted by the convention itself, Bill C-6 protects and preserves the ability of Canada and the Canadian armed forces to continue to work with key allies that have not yet joined the convention. This continued cooperation with non-party states, also known as interoperability, helps enhance our national security by providing a wide range of collaborative opportunities such as exchange positions, intelligence-sharing, joint exercises, combined operations, and just as important, the placing of Canadians in command in key positions. This is particularly important in light of our valuable and unique relationship with the United States, our most important ally and defence partner.

In this context, it is vital that our men and women in uniform and the civilians working with them are not unjustly accused of criminal conduct when doing what we ask of them in the interests of our national security and defence. Bill C-6 thus affords them the legal protection they need to do their job, as permitted by the convention.

For example, under the convention and Bill C-6, these men and women can continue to ask for potentially life-saving military assistance from our allies, be they signatories to the convention or not, without fear of being disciplined or put on trial for the policy decisions of these other states. In situations where the Canadian armed forces have the exclusive choice of munitions to be used by the forces of a non-party state, we will prohibit our members from expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions. It is also worth underlining that nothing in the interoperability provisions of the convention, or within Bill C-6, detracts in any way from Canada’s existing obligations under international humanitarian law.

The Canadian armed forces and its personnel will at all times during all operations remain bound by obligations prohibiting the authorization of, assistance with, or participation in an indiscriminate attack, including one using cluster munitions, whether they are acting on their own or in concert with foreign partners.

In 2008, as evidence of Canada’s commitment to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and upon our signature of it, the chief of the defence staff issued an interim directive prohibiting the use of these weapons in any Canadian armed forces operations. As we move forward, the chief of the defence staff will issue another directive, which will reflect all the requirements of Bill C-6, as ultimately adopted by Parliament. In addition, this new directive will also prohibit Canadian armed forces members on exchange with allied armed forces from directly using cluster munitions and from giving or receiving training in their use.

It will also prohibit the transportation of cluster munitions in Canadian armed forces vehicles or vessels. This goes above and beyond the convention’s requirements and it will take the form of military orders that carry the force of law within the Canadian armed forces. All these restrictions will be incorporated into the Canadian armed forces rules of engagement, and will typically be communicated to allies when Canada enters into military cooperation activities with them, as one method of informing our allies of our obligations under the convention. They will be implemented when the bill receives royal assent and will be legally binding for Canadian armed forces members under the military justice system.

That concludes my statement.

[Sabine Nolke, Director General, Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much.

I am pleased to be here today to speak to you about Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, which is an important and necessary step toward Canada's ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Cluster munitions are a very serious humanitarian concern. Deployed from the air or ground, some types of cluster munitions can release dozens or even hundreds of smaller submunitions, which can rapidly cover a large area. These can pose serious threats to civilians, not only during attacks but especially afterwards if they fail to detonate as intended. Unexploded bomblets can kill and maim civilians long after conflicts have ended. Sadly, many of these victims are children, who pick them up mistaking them for toys.

Even when they do not kill, cluster munitions cause horrific injuries that seriously jeopardize the future of those affected and their families. Furthermore, access to land and essential infrastructure contaminated by unexploded bomblets is blocked. This stalls the development potential of whole communities trying to rebuild their lives after conflict and undermines efforts at long-term stabilization.

Canada has long been committed to protecting civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war. Canada has never produced cluster munitions, nor used them in Canadian Armed Forces-led operations. However, this weapon has been used by other states in more than 35 conflicts around the world since the end of the Second World War. Over 25 countries and other territories are thought to be contaminated by these munitions. Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, for example, remain some of the most heavily contaminated countries in the world decades after the conflicts there have ended.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions entered into force in August 2010. To date, the convention has 83 state parties. This number will grow to 84 on March 1, 2014, when the convention enters into force for Saint Kitts and Nevis. An additional 29 states have signed the convention but have not yet ratified it. Most of our NATO allies have signed or ratified it, although some, including the United States, Turkey and Poland, have not.

The convention bans the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, and transfer of cluster munitions. It prohibits countries that agree to be bound by it from taking part in these activities and from assisting or encouraging anyone else to do so. It obliges them to criminalize these activities in domestic law.

Furthermore, it seeks to address past use by requiring clearance of contaminated areas, rehabilitation for victims of these munitions, and where possible, assisting affected countries in need.

The convention also permits military cooperation and operations between states that are party to the treaty and those that are not. This is the so-called interoperability clause. From the beginning of the negotiations, Canada strongly supported the need to ensure that state parties could continue to collaborate militarily with non-state parties. The interoperability clause was an essential compromise that allowed many countries, including Canada, to sign the convention. It ensures that Canada will be able to continue participating in multinational military operations with its key allies that are not party to the convention, particularly the United States, with which we enjoy a robust and vibrant military cooperation.

Drawing the line between prohibiting use by countries that are party to the convention while allowing legitimate and responsible cooperation with countries that are not was the most difficult issue in the negotiations, given the complex situations and scenarios in which military cooperation takes place.

Bill C-6 implements those parts of the convention that require legislation in Canada. Other provisions are carried out by other means and not necessarily through legislative mechanisms. The obligation to advocate in favour of the convention's norms, for example, will be implemented through diplomatic channels, while programming is in place to provide assistance to states affected by cluster munitions.

I'm turning now to those provisions that require legislative implementation and that are included in Bill C-6, which is before you today.

The convention requires a state party to give effect to the prohibitions it imposes on states by imposing certain criminal prohibitions on persons within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the proposed act sets out a series of offences and the technical definitions needed to support their investigation and prosecution.

More specifically, the bill prohibits the use, development, manufacture, acquisition, possession, import, export, and cross-border movement of cluster munitions. It also prohibits aiding, abetting, counselling, and attempting or conspiring to commit such offences or such activity.

The proposed act also sets out some exceptions to these general prohibitions. Since the convention calls for the use of criminal law it is necessary to create these exceptions to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces and associated civilians who are engaged in the military activities that are specifically permitted by the convention, in particular those relating to the interoperability clause of the convention, will not be held criminally responsible for doing their jobs.

It is important to recall, as I mentioned earlier, that such exceptions are permitted by the convention itself. They do not authorize any specific activity at any particular time. They simply exclude Canadian Forces members and associated civilians who are engaged in military activities from the new criminal offences that Bill C-6 would create under specific circumstances. They have been strictly Iimited so that only persons who are acting on behalf of Canada are excluded, only when the activity in question is part of a permitted form of military cooperation, and only when the other country involved is not a state party to the convention. This is very important because it means that as other countries join the convention and renounce these munitions the legal exclusions become progressively narrower in effect.

I should also point out that these exceptions do not detract in any way from any other applicable legal obligations, including those established by the law of armed conflict. Under international law the indiscriminate or disproportionate use of any weapon is a war crime, whether or not the weapon is a cluster munition, and could be subject to prosecution in Canada under the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Nothing in Bill C-6 changes this.

Canadian armed forces members would remain prohibited from using cluster munitions in Canadian operations and from expressly requesting their use when the choice of munitions to be used is under their exclusive control. DND will impose additional prohibitions for its forces. My colleague from DND will speak to those in more detail.

Canada has already taken concrete measures to implement aspects of the convention. For example, the Canadian Armed Forces have initiated the process of destroying all of their cluster munitions. Their last remaining inventory has been removed from operational stocks and marked for destruction.

Canada is also assisting countries that are affected by cluster munitions. Since 2006, Canada has contributed more than $200 million to mine action projects, which address the impact of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions. Most recently, Canada has provided $1 million in funding to Laos for cluster munitions clearance activities.

Canada is firmly committed to the goals of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This bill, if enacted, will solidify that commitment by enabling Canada to ratify the convention and become part of the growing number of nations intent on eliminating the use of these weapons.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, October 25, 2013, discussion of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions will start today.

I want to thank our guests for taking the time to be here and, as usual, for being here on such short notice as well.

We have Hugh Adsett, who is the deputy legal adviser and director general for the legal affairs bureau with DFATD. Welcome, sir.

We have Sabine Nolke, who is the director general of the non-proliferation and security threat reduction bureau, also from DFATD. Thank you, and welcome to you.

We have Brigadier-General Charles Lamarre, director general of operations in the strategic joint staff of the Department of National Defence. Thank you, and welcome to committee.

Joining him is Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Penny, who is from the directorate of international and operational law, in the office of the judge advocate general. Welcome, sir, to you as well.

Rounding it out at the end of the table, from the Department of Justice, we have Christopher Ram, legal counsel from the criminal law policy section. Welcome.

We're getting started a little bit early today. It is Thursday, so depending upon how many questions MPs want to ask, we'll go right to 5:30 or we may go sooner. Because it's Thursday afternoon, who knows? Maybe we'll finish a little bit early, as long as all the questions have been answered, and we'll certainly give all our colleagues here a chance to do that.

I'm going to start with Madam Nolke and her presentation.

You each have up to 10 minutes. I'm not sure—I thought it was maybe 10 minutes, 5 minutes, and 5 minutes. I'm not sure what you have with regard to that, but we'll start and work our way across the table. Then we will turn it over to the members of Parliament to follow up with some questions.

Madam Nolke, we'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you for being here.

Disarmament Week

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is Disarmament Week.

Canada was once a leader in disarmament issues. Take, for example, the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House in 2010 regarding nuclear disarmament and the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. With Bill C-6, the Conservatives are undermining the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Cluster munitions primarily kill civilians.

Canada is withdrawing from the Arms Trade Treaty, which 114 countries, including the United States, have signed. What is more, last week we learned that this government is easing controls on Canadian military equipment exports. I could go on.

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP wants to build a safer world through multilateralism and conflict prevention.

Have a good Disarmament Week.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-10 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)