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

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, being ex-military myself, there is a concept I have some difficulty understanding in the government's position, which is basically about cluster munitions being a dirty war. We have a tendency to go toward something that is clean, that is based on intel and drones, to make things clean and make sure that there are no civilian victims. We do not want wars. We want peace. Yet here we are making a loophole so that when we go into a country and intervene, we leave crap behind that kills civilians and children.

I do not understand the attitude of saying that we want to defend our troops. There are about a million tools we could use. The tendency is that when we go into someone's backyard, we try to leave in peace, where people are in harmony and believe in a future of peace. It is not where children are running around and being blown up because we were cowards with no backbone and left something behind.

Could my colleague tell us why clause 11 is unacceptable?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the start of my colleague’s comment and his question.

I did not have a chance to raise that point since I was mainly talking about international negotiations. When we think about these weapons in detail and the fact that they are left in people’s yards, we realize that some very dangerous weapons have been left behind.

Earlier this evening, one of my colleagues cited the example of a young child running in the street who might think he has found a trinket that he can pick up as one would pick up a rock or a branch. Since it is a very dangerous weapon, it could cause a problem. My colleague also mentioned the bill’s flaws. That goes back to the comments I made to the effect that we have a responsibility. When we start negotiations, we have a reason. This type of weapon no longer has any place in international society.

Whether in or outside Canada, it is important that we go all the way when we make a commitment to solve a problem, regardless of what some of our allies may decide.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

NDP

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech rather interesting. I am wondering if she would have known what she was talking about had she not read a speech prepared by someone else.

Frankly, the fact that she is calling Canada a pacifist country leads me to believe that the United States entered the First World War before we did. That is not the case. She also gave the impression that, during the Second World War, the United States were battling against the fascism of Nazi Germany before we were. That is also not the case. Her speech gave me the impression that we never went to Korea and that we did not do an extremely tough job in Afghanistan.

Canada is not a pacifist country. I do not know where she got that idea, and I do not know why she is reading speeches written by someone else.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I am going to refuse to answer that question. I simply refuse to allow someone to tell me that I do not write my own speeches. I would have liked to hear a speech from the member opposite so that the NDP could ask him some questions.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2014 / 8:10 p.m.

NDP

Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Joliette for her excellent speech. She is an excellent speaker, and we and the people of Joliette are very proud of the job she does.

The Conservatives have read a few too many history books. As a former member of the military, I find it insulting that they would have the gall to say that soldiers would use this type of munition at all costs. I doubt that any soldier would be proud to go into a country to help people, knowing that he is leaving behind munitions, weapons or remnants of war that could kill children and civilians. That is never the intent.

I am insulted to hear my colleague say that Canada is not a pacifist country. Yes, Canada has participated in conflicts, but we have always had the backbone tell the United States that what it was doing was not right and that we would not follow the U.S. if it did not fulfill certain conditions.

I do not know who the Conservatives think they are, but they are certainly not the government.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Repentigny for his question.

I sometimes get visits at my office from members of the military, and what they have been through is no laughing matter. They have seen the horrors of war. If I understand correctly, my colleague was once a member of the military.

My grandson wants to enlist in the army to help people. I hope that he will never go to another country to be blown up.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are no words.

Even though my colleague made a speech earlier, we would have liked to hear from our colleagues opposite once again.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we hear all kinds of things in the House. From time to time, we have to show some humility and move forward to debate a matter as important as this one. This is an important subject for us and for many of our constituents.

In recent weeks, I have spent time with a number of World War II veterans, including those who took part in the Normandy landing. One of them honoured us with his presence in the House a few weeks ago.

When these soldiers go to war, they do not want to kill anyone. The only thing they think about is saving lives and ensuring that the country they are fighting for, whether their own or an allied country, can live in peace. It is not true that Canada is not a pacifist country. That is absolutely and utterly false. It is insulting to hear such words. When soldiers go to war, they do not go to start a war; they go to end a war, to live in peace and to secure democracy in a modern and prosperous country. Canada is a modern and prosperous society.

When our soldiers went on a peacekeeping mission in Cypress or Sarajevo and had to engage in combat, they did so in order to protect themselves and return home after completing their mission. These soldiers leave on a mission. They are not always aware of the collateral damage of their battle or their fight, and that is probably what is most perverse about cluster munitions. When soldiers leave the battlefield, what is left behind? That is what we have to examine. We have to look at that more than the Oslo convention or the bill. We have to know what the collateral damage is. Why do we have to ensure that the weapons we use cause the least amount of collateral damage? It is difficult because at that point, soldiers are on the front line, in an industry of war.

There was Agent Orange in Vietnam, and then everything that happened with the attacks in Iraq. There was collateral damage. I am talking about nuclear enrichment and weapons. They always create collateral damage. Canada is a country that promotes peace. It has often been involved in talks and was even a leader, notably with Princess Diana, when it came to establishing specific rules to combat the use of landmines. Despite all those efforts, our soldiers and the local population in combat zones are often victims of collateral damage.

I will say it again: that is the worst part of all of this. That is what we need to address, instead of trying to pass a bill that contradicts itself. According to clause 11, our soldiers could come into contact with these weapons, which are prohibited under clause 6. That is both absurd and worrisome. When our soldiers are engaged in combat alongside our allies, no matter who they are—most times it is the Americans—they obey their orders. On the ground, soldiers must obey any orders that are given. Soldiers want to be sure that at the end of the mission, there is peace. It does not matter where on the planet they are.

It is important to point out that Canada is a leader and always has been. Just think about Lester B. Pearson's peace missions. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement. It is important to remember that. That is leadership.

It is important to say that because leadership must be perpetuated. We must perpetuate it. In spite of everything, we live in quite a prosperous country. There may be controversies, and we may debate economic development issues, for example, and hold contradictory opinions because we do not agree with each other. However, when the Canadian Armed Forces go into combat or on a mission, their purpose is more to save than to destroy.

I was astounded by one figure I heard: global stockpiles of these weapons amount to approximately four billion bomblets. Four billion. One-quarter of those bombs are held by the Americans, with whom we often go on peacekeeping or combat missions, and there will be other similar missions. Let us look at what is going on in Syria and Africa. Who knows when we will be called upon to take part in a future mission? Once again, our soldiers will be in contact with these weapons. It is therefore somewhat meaningless for a bill to include one clause that contradicts another. I do not understand that based on what little law I studied. A bill must be completely harmonious. However, this one contradicts itself.

As regards collateral damage, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed in 2006 and 112 were seriously wounded in Afghanistan by these kinds of weapons, either cluster munitions or anti-personnel mines.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Those are the figures we have, Mr. Speaker. It is true that collateral damage occurs, because civilians have even been killed by these weapons, and CBC journalists who witnessed that have also been severely wounded.

Apart from clause 11, what does the wording of the bill say? It refers to the prohibition of these weapons, and yet people will be in contact with them. Soldiers will carry out their missions right to the end because they are honest men acting in good faith who defend their honour. However, it is utterly absurd that hundreds of thousands of people should suffer the collateral damage caused by this kind of weapon. These are innocent victims who will lose an arm, a leg or both. Their lives will be ruined forever. This is completely ridiculous.

If the government wanted to introduce a bill that is true to our tradition and certainly to our nature as a peace-loving country, it would have to ensure that, no matter where our soldiers are deployed, they will not come into contact with this type of weapon. Of course, that is virtually impossible. At least if the bill conveyed that intent, we could say that the legislative body, the House of Commons, had done its duty.

I will ignore all of the comments about whether we should debate this or not. This will end soon, and we will all spend a lovely summer campaigning in our ridings.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the spokesperson for the opposition and I have to question a few points.

First of all, he said that soldiers are out fighting for democracy. We did not fight for democracy in Afghanistan. We did not fight for democracy in Iraq. We did not fight for democracy in Libya. In the 1950s when we were in Korea, the south was not a democracy, and we did not fight for democracy either. Fighting as a soldier does not mean we have to fight for democracy. Sometimes we do and sometimes we do not.

The member also mentioned pacifism. We do not have an aura of pacifism about us. We have never been pacifists. We always fight for a cause and we stay with that cause.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that anyone would make such comments. The member said that we are not a pacifist country. We all know that when soldiers go to war, they go to war. We know what that means.

Fundamentally, the people of Canada, from coast to coast to coast, are pacifists who want peace. Of course we fight for democracy when we go to war. Our boys fought in the Second World War to uphold democracy and ensure that we would not have to pay a bloody price for our right to vote. It is insulting to hear such comments in the House.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, what a circus this is. I have met some of the members opposite under other circumstances, and while I find them to be truly honourable, I cannot believe that they have the gall to make such inappropriate comments tonight. Saying that democracy is heavy and complex is absolutely pathetic.

Will my colleague find it deplorable to have to tell his constituents about the debate he had with these people, who usually have good heads on their shoulders and represent other Canadians with whom we share these values? These people are saying that we are not pacifists.

To most Canadians, it is clear that Canada is not a militaristic country that engages in offensive action. The vast majority of our military involvement is peacekeeping. Failing to recognize that makes absolutely no sense.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that Canada is being made out to be a sometime instigator of conflicts. That is totally ludicrous. It is a regressive and totally outdated view. I have spent time with colleagues opposite, and I can tell you that that is not the way they see things.

They can clown around all they like. We will see which clowns will be at the starting gate in 2015. I am convinced that half of them will not have the nerve to even show up.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON

I have a very simple question, Mr. Speaker.

Does the hon. member, who believes Canada is a pacifist country, realize that even the illustrious Lester B. Pearson took part in wars? Does he know that even Lester B. Pearson fought to defend Canadian ideals in the First World War?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, one could argue the member is contradicting himself. If Lester B. Pearson went to war, it is because he knew he would save his country, his Queen and his democracy. The fact that Mr. Pearson went to war does not make him an aggressor.

That is called freedom. We are the ones fighting for freedom, which has ceased to exist in the House of Commons under Conservative rule.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. Before we resume debate, I would ask all members if they could listen to the member who has the floor. If they are unable to do so, then they may need to go for a walk or something.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert is rising on a point of order.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague across the way a question.

I would like to correct her on one thing. She said that we were saying that we need these weapons. No one on this side ever said we needed them at all. In fact, they are reprehensible. We all want to get rid of them, and we are taking a leadership role internationally with the other countries in working toward this.

I want to quote testimony given by General Natynczyk in committee. He said:

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....

He went on to say:

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.

That is what clause 11 is all about. Does the hon. member not think it is important to protect our soldiers in the event that this happens, even though we have the amendment to say that they cannot use them specifically?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the tone he has had throughout this debate. It is quite refreshing.

First, Canada needs to take a leadership role to convince our allies and partners to stop using these weapons. Second, we need to look at the possibility of negotiating with our allies about how Canada will be involved in the missions it chooses to participate in.

We need to respect our own values and culture. The Canadian public expects certain things from the Canadian Armed Forces. It is up to the government and the Chief of the Defence Staff to negotiate and make sure that our decisions and our values are respected when we undertake missions with other allies.

I do not know whether the Conservatives have explored that, since collaboration and discussion are not their strong suits, but it may be something to keep in mind and to explore in the future.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, periodically I like to interject to provide some thoughts in regard to the issue the member made reference to, which is the issue of international leadership. Earlier I made reference to the fact that it was the Ottawa treaty that dealt with the issue of land mines. Individuals such as Lloyd Axworthy played a critical role in advancing that.

The convention on cluster munitions was actually signed back in 2008, so it has been a number of years and the government has not been able to bring in the legislation. As has been pointed out, the legislation has some serious issues that cause international concern.

Would the member not agree that Canada is losing out by not providing strong international leadership on such an important issue, given our past record, particularly on the Ottawa treaty, which dealt with the horrendous land mines?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. He has captured the essence of what I was trying to raise in the House.

Canada has always played a leadership role. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten, but before they arrived on the scene, our country was known as a pacifist country. I know that will make the Conservatives scream and shout, but I will continue to use that word. It is a proud part of our heritage. We have every reason to be proud.