House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was munitions.

Topics

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for making the points he did. Because I do not see members of the opposition who are at committee, they may be unfamiliar with some of the nuances of the legislation, and the member made some errors. I would like to correct a couple of them.

One thing that needs to be made clear is that at committee, every party in this House opposed cluster munitions and the use of them at any point in any place. Words like “despicable” and “abhorrent” were used by all of us to describe these weapons and what they do. There was no one in that room who was in favour of using cluster munitions at any point in any place.

I should point out that Canadian troops have never used them and never intend to use them. Some of our allies, the United States in particular, have not signed the convention. That leaves an issue, because we have interoperability agreements with the United States, which means that our soldiers have to serve with theirs. The only exception made in this bill is to allow our soldiers to work alongside U.S. soldiers and not be caught in a situation where they are held liable for something they are not responsible for. Earlier today the minister used the example of Canadian soldiers who would fill a plane with fuel not knowing that cluster munitions were in that plane.

There are not giant loopholes in this bill. This bill has been put together to protect Canadian troops and to make clear our opposition to cluster munitions. I would like the member's comments on that.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I respect the fact that nobody in the House wants anyone to use cluster munitions. What we are opposed to is the suggestion that we are not doing everything in our power, including refusing to have an interoperability agreement with a country that uses them. That is the step we are willing to take that the Conservatives are not.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

NDP

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?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the opportunity to ask members opposite questions on this, but they apparently do not want to get up and give us that opportunity.

If I did have the opportunity, I would ask if they were prepared to further amend the bill. The bill is flawed as it is now. It is, in the words of some, the worst implementation in the world of this cluster munitions treaty by any country that has signed it. We think it can be hugely improved, particularly in clause 11. I would ask the government opposite if it would be willing to consider thoughtful, reasoned amendments, including, perhaps, the ability of Canada to refuse, as we did on Iraq, to go to war with some of our partners if it meant being alongside a partner that was using cluster munitions.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is quite late. We are here again this evening debating an important bill—

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. There is too much noise in the House. The hon. member for Québec.

It is necessary to have order in the House. We only really have one more speaking slot to go before the end of the time allocated for this debate. I would encourage all hon. members to yield the floor to the hon. member for Québec.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2014 / 10:55 p.m.

NDP

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.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is one underlying current here tonight. I hope they do not actually mean it the way it comes across and that may be perceived by some as a vilification of the United States. There are no two greater friends, allies, and partners than the United States and Canada.

I would ask a very simple question of my colleague, and I would like a really simple answer. Because the United States has cluster munitions, because the United States has nuclear weapons and other weapons Canada does not own and would not consider using and opposes using, is the member suggesting that we should never operate with the United States and that we should get out of NATO and get out of NORAD because we are partnered with the United States? The message here is that we should never operate with an ally that has or could use those kinds of weapons. Are they suggesting over there that we should abandon NATO and NORAD because the United States is the primary partner in both those alliances?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

NDP

Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is all misinformation. It is ridiculous. I am not saying we should never work with countries like the United States or other countries. That is not what I am saying.

How can the government claim it wants to ratify the convention when it is in fact trying to undermine it? That is what I want to point out. The government is trying to undermine the convention, to avoid complying with it and to circumvent the rules once again so that it can do as it pleases without ever listening to the people on the ground or the experts.

Personally, I do not want to comment on more military points. I want to emphasize that it is important to listen. I do not understand why the government does not see that.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Green

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.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

NDP

Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s comment.

In some cases, it would be good to look at what is being done in the United States. For example, take the free trade agreements that the United States has signed, as it did with Panama. If we had requested a little more information on security issues, and if we had imitated our American neighbours, we would have a much better free trade agreement than the one we negotiated.

Of course, we are prepared to work with people who show some common sense. That is what the NDP thinks. We should negotiate with those who comply with the spirit of a convention and the law, in addition to showing common sense.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

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.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

NDP

Annick Papillon NDP Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, since I have little time left, I will conclude by saying that I support Mr. Hannon of Mines Action Canada when he says that Canada should have the best implementation act in the world. That is what we want, moreover. We must state clearly that no Canadian will be involved in the use of such a weapon again. The proposed bill does not really meet these expectations.

Why is the government trying to do as little as possible instead of striving to pass the best implementation act in the world? The reason why the New Democrats were elected was to make sure Canada had the best laws in the world.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 11:13 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

: The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

11:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.