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

8:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

NDP

Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

I definitely saw that coming, Mr. Speaker. The word “pacifist” gets a rise out of them every time. They seem to think it is really insulting, which I find fascinating.

In any event, despite their shouting, Canada has a responsibility to regain its international and humanitarian reputation. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have destroyed it, and we are a disgrace around the world. I know people who refuse to wear the Canadian flag when they go abroad because of the terrible reputation this government has given us. The Conservatives would do well to learn from history. They need to change their attitude, and quickly.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

NDP

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, this will be more on the comment side. I want to clear up some of the misstatements of fact that have been made in the last little while.

First of all, there have been zero Canadians killed or injured by cluster munitions in Afghanistan, zero.

Second, the opposition talked about wanting to debate and that is terrific. They wrote all these speeches and that is great, but it sounds as if they sat around the same table at the same time, because the speeches have a remarkable similarity, and that is okay.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

We are all talking about the same thing.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Another point that was brought up by another person across the way suggested that Canadians are allowed to transport munitions. That is not true. That is absolutely not true. It is false. The member should withdraw that statement. I know she will not, but that is okay.

Going back to my colleague, the retired general from Carleton—Mississippi Mills, we are not a pacifist nation. We were not pacifists in 1914, 1939, 1950, 1991—

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Oh, shut up.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

No, I am sorry, but I will not shut up. I am going to speak the truth. I am going to speak the truth, and I would ask my hon. colleagues—

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order, order. I would encourage all hon. members to remain in their seats and listen to whoever has the floor at that time. This applies to both sides of the Chamber tonight.

I would also remind members that they are not allowed to use unparliamentary language when they are speaking. They are not supposed to be heckling in the first place, so if members refrain from heckling, then they will avoid using non-parliamentary language while heckling.

I am going to go back to the hon. member for a quick wrap-up. He has about 10 seconds.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, in point of fact, the general was right. We fight for freedom. That is what we fight for, the freedom for people to make their own choice on what they want to do. Afghanistan will never be a democracy like Canada. We fought for their freedom.

With respect to detainees, I really take offence. I know that file inside out. There was never any evidence at all from the Red Cross or—

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order, order.

The hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

NDP

Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will only be making comments since I heard no questions in what my colleague said. He is putting words in my mouth. He wants to identify our country as an aggressive nation, whereas that is not the case. I think that is what my colleagues who spoke previously wanted to say. Our country has come to the defence of allied countries. We fight for freedom and for the Canadian values that we want to uphold, regardless of what my colleague thinks.

In future, I would invite my colleagues to ask questions on what I myself said, not on what others said an hour ago. I think we have to move away from that kind of discussion.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:50 p.m.

NDP

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?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

NDP

Sylvain Chicoine NDP Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

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

She just quoted Mr. Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development when it was studying this bill.

I cannot agree more with that statement since article 21 will allow our soldiers to use cluster munitions while participating in missions with allied countries that have not ratified the convention. I believe the government lacks leadership. Mr. Hannon was absolutely right.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

NDP

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

What have I been doing for the last two hours?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

NDP

Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON

The Conservatives have not been defending their position, Mr. Speaker. They have been attacking ours. If they had any courage in the House, then at least one of them, maybe a minister or a backbencher, would get up and give a speech and tell us why we should not ratify this convention, why we should be making changes.

Why are we leaving loopholes in the bill that would allow Canadians to stand alongside others who are using them, that would allow Canadians to call in cluster bomb attacks if they are on detached service with other countries?

Why will no members of the government get up to defend their position?

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

It's not defendable. It's not defendable.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

NDP

Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON

That is right, Mr. Speaker. It is not defendable, so the Conservatives are not even going to try to defend it. They are just going to sit here and make snide remarks. They are not going to get up and explain to Canadians why the bill contains that clause 11. Before members of the government decide to get up and actually ask a question or make a comment, they might want to take a bit of time to explain why clause 11 is there and why Canadians should be working alongside member states that are using these weapons.

The quote that I started my speech with talks about how 20 years later these munitions are still going off and maiming people. They are still killing civilians and children. Why the government would defend a loophole that would allow that to continue is beyond me. It is certainly not a Canadian value.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Then it's beyond you that's for sure.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

NDP

Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON

They like to agree with each other, Mr. Speaker, but they do not ask Canadians what they think about this legislation. If they did, Canadians would tell them as they are saying on Twitter and elsewhere tonight, that they do not believe that clause 11 is necessary, that they believe that Canada should be a world leader when it comes to ending cluster munitions like we were with the landmine treaty. That is the kind of leadership Canadians expect from our country. They do not like imposing loopholes that would allow these reprehensible, heinous weapons to continue to be used.

One of our major partners, the United States, has a quarter of the world's stockpile of these munitions. Does that mean we stop working with that country? Absolutely not. It means that Canada should take a stand and say we are not going to work alongside these munitions, that we do not condone the use of these munitions in theatres of operation where Canadians are going to be, not only for our own protection but for the protection of the civilians who are going to be there 20 years down the road, the children not even born yet but who will be maimed or killed by the unexploded munitions.

I would like to give members a reference. The lawn of Parliament Hill is not even the size of several soccer fields. If just one of these munitions went off in this area it would contaminate the area. People would not be able to live or work in peace in the area for many years to come.

I look forward to questions from the government.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9:05 p.m.

NDP

Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member says they do not condone the use of the weapons, but at the same time they expressly put in a loophole to allow Canadians on detached service to serve alongside folks who are using them. That is not just the United States. That would be any country that is not a signatory to this bill that we entered into joint operations with. We never know which partners we are going to have in the future on specific missions.

The amendment that was passed specifically stopped Canadians from being able to use it as part of detached service, but it did not prohibit all the rest, that would allow Canadian soldiers to serve alongside, that would allow Canadian soldiers to participate in the transportation and be part of a group that had these munitions and that might be using them.

I, for one, would not want any of our Canadian Armed Forces soldiers to have that kind of guilt on their conscience, to have been part of the use of these kinds of heinous weapons that, as I quoted, would actually be maiming and killing people 20 years later.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

June 16th, 2014 / 9:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, during my military training, when I saw officers coming back deeply traumatized from their experience in Bosnia, none of them proudly said how much fun it would have been to leave behind a few surprises that would hurt people and blow them up. On the contrary, they deeply regretted not having the chance to do more to help civilians. I have never seen a well-balanced soldier go overseas with the intent of leaving behind something that would hurt civilians or children.

Since the government is proudly planning to leave that crap behind, will it identify each munition with a small Canadian flag? This would remind future generations and their grandchildren that Canada was once in their country.

Report StageProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. I am not sure how the translator translated the one word, but I again would remind all hon. members to stick to parliamentary language.

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.