Bill S-10 (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.

Bill S-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Oh, the member is no longer here.

In any event, the real issue is very much how we can progress on an issue as important as this and to move legislation. While it is not perfect, there are issues that could be taken with any bill on any issue. However, the reality is that we have an opportunity with this legislation that has received scrutiny in the other place, that has followed the process of legislation that comes from the Senate and that presents the opportunity to the House to move this bill forward.

We are proud of the negotiations in which Canada took part in the early days to bring about Canada's compliance and position. To remind the House, practically speaking this legislation would prohibit all possession of cluster munitions, including the stockpiling of any munitions in Canada, or cluster munitions belonging to states that are not parties to the convention.

This is a prohibition across the country that would bring Canada in line with its international partners. We do have cluster munitions, which we are now in the process of disposing. I will state for emphasis that we have not used them operationally. We have destroyed most of the stockpiles already. We are in the process of exploring the options to dispose of these final stockpiles. Practically speaking, we are well down the road when it comes to Canada's compliance.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is rising on a point order.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on the record to say that the Liberal member who asked a question immediately walked out. That shows his commitment to this question.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The parliamentary secretary is well aware that it is improper to note the fact of someone not being in the House.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for a question or comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence, like most of his colleagues, is trying to manipulate reality to his liking. I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance, and I have seen just how often the government chooses not to play by the rules. That is why it is imposing this 45th time allocation motion under false pretenses that are completely unfounded. The real problem is that the government is trying to impose its will from a to z, without listening to proposals from the opposition parties.

I want to speak briefly to the bill. The problem is not with the agreement itself; we are completely in favour of the agreement. The problem is that the bill undermines the enforcement of that agreement. Once again, as it did with the provinces and the health care agreement, for example, the government is trying to impose its will, to erode and sabotage perfectly valid agreements.

In a similar fashion, the government has turned a blind eye in other cases. It absolutely refuses to hear proposals from the opposition parties. Am I right to think that the minister will say the bill is perfect and that no NDP proposals will be received, debated, studied or considered by the government?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment suggest that the hon. member's views on this important issue are somehow invalid or would not contribute to its improvement.

However, again, this legislation is now at a place before the House where we can move forward on an international convention that dates back to 2008. This is an occasion in which action, not words, is needed.

The legislation is not perfect. I have said that. Most bills that come before the House are not in a perfect form, yet here we have broad support. There are NGOs that are very much in favour of the legislation, calling on the government and the Parliament of Canada to move forward and allow us to ratify it and live up to our obligations. We have taken substantial steps to do that.

Again, I repeat that Canada has an opportunity to demonstrate continued leadership in the world, to show a forward-leaning attitude when it comes to an issue as important as the ban on land mines. I would suggest that gives us the moral authority to then approach many of our allies, who have not taken the steps that Canada has and who have not moved forward in demonstrating the same type of forward-leaning attitude.

We can say definitively to them that we have passed legislation in our country, that we have taken concrete action in moving forward with our own obligations and that we encourage them, our friends and allies, to do the same.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member may not know this, but Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for Mine Action at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention. He also negotiated the convention on certain conventional weapons and the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines. He knows his stuff. He said about this legislation, that “the proposed...legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention [on cluster munitions] to date”. What does the minister have to say about that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that this legislation meets our obligations. This legislation would allow us to now ratify, as opposed to being on the sidelines and talking about it, as the NDP like to do incessantly.

We want to demonstrate action, movement forward, and progress. We embarked on this process in 2008.

[An hon. member]

What took so long?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member asks what took so long. We are standing here ready to make it happen, and as usual the member and his party want to block progress. They want to stand in the way of progress. They throw up their hands and say “it is not perfect” or “somehow it could be better”. For want of a nail, a shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, a horse was lost. For want of a horse, a soldier was lost, a war, a continent. This is the classic NDP position. They want to hold up progress and seek the perfect, which may never come.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the classic Conservative stance. They bring forward a botched bill that has opposition, and they are trying to ram it through without the democratic debate that would strengthen it. That is exactly what Conservatives do.

This is the 45th time that the Conservatives have imposed closure. That is a record beyond belief. That is a record beyond even the corrupt Liberal regime in its dying days, with scandals left, right, and centre. The same thing is happening with the Conservatives. Even the Liberals did not impose closure as much as the Conservatives are doing now. They are showing total disrespect for Canadians, total disrespect for their own constituents.

The question is very simple. We have had 10 minutes of debate in the House on this legislation, and that was midnight on a Wednesday three weeks ago. We have had 10 minutes of debate. As the member for Ottawa Centre has said so eloquently, a whole bunch of problems were exposed with the bill after only 10 minutes of debate. That is really why the Conservatives have invoked closure and are trying to ram this through and shut down debate. This is typical Conservative attitude. They do not care about the problems with the bill. They do not care about the opposition. They do not care about Canadians. They are just going to ram it through. That is simply not good enough. Canadians deserve better.

Why can the Conservatives not do better and allow for debate on this legislation so we can improve what has been a pretty shoddy exercise in drafting?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we see from that member the usual grandstanding, waving of his arms, the dramatic presentation that he so often brings to the House, the stepping into the aisle as if he is somehow being provocative and cool.

Canadians want to see actual results. They want to see legislation. They want to see their laws. They want to see their government. They want to see programs and projects advance. They do not want to hear endless debate.

The member says we have only had 10 minutes; the reality is that we have had since 2008. I do not know where the member was in 2008, but I can tell the House, as a minister in the government, that we knew then as we know now, that what is required is action. We do not require endless debate, the flapping of the gums, as the member is doing right now, and shaking his bushy head and showing what a cool guy he is. Canadians want action. They want to see movement. They want to see implementation. Canadians do not want to hear this wrangling and members suggesting that the government is offside with the international community.

We are now stepping in line with our colleagues and allies and trying to bring other countries to the position where we can ratify the convention, where we can start removing land mines and munitions from the ground that risk the lives of children. That member's blowhard talk over there is not going to save children. Moving on this legislation will.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly disappointed by the attitude of the opposition. The Minister of National Defence has put this very eloquently. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but the opposition would wilfully throw out the good in pursuit of the perfect.

This legislation is the result of an international consensus. This is Canada's opportunity to ratify what is an international consensus, but the NDP stands opposed to that.

My constituents would like to see this ratified. They would like to see these kinds of protections in place for people around the world who do not have the kind of protections that we in Canada take for granted.

Could the minister speak to that?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is an individual who seems to represent his constituents and the electoral constituency of Peterborough with clarity. He has a thoughtful approach that says, “Let's get things done. Let's show our ability to actually demonstrate action and leadership in the House of Commons”.

In the last days of the House, I would suggest it would be very fitting to say to the world, “Look at what we have done on such an important issue”. The Canadians Forces will similarly act. We are already taking steps, as I said earlier, to ensure that cluster munitions are in fact out of harm's way, out of the ability to be put to use. It is a Senate bill, of course, but it is here in our House of Commons. “Wake up and smell the thing”, as my friend would say.

The legislation would preserve Canada's ability to work alongside our allies. It is legislation that would prohibit all forms and possession of cluster munitions, including stockpiling, as I mentioned before.

As a result of this and other actions we would take, the Canadian Forces would make it a policy to prohibit its members from using cluster munitions, including our members serving on exchange with allied armed forces. However, we have taken practical steps to protect interoperability and not stand in the way of our ongoing efforts. As we have seen in Afghanistan to date, we have the ability to work shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies in the completion and the work that is being done on behalf of Canadians who help bring about peace and stability in many of these forlorn countries.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the last question. I would like to ask the minister how this bill can be considered urgent, given that it was introduced six month ago, on December 6, 2012.

The government is just now waking up. It allowed 10 minutes for debate on a Wednesday evening a few weeks ago. After 10 minutes of debate today, it says it has to limit the time for debate. The Conservatives do not even know if the opposition opposes it. In fact, we have not even had time to announce our position. They are already thinking that everyone is going to impede the process.

Earlier the minister said that most bills are not perfect. If that is really what he thinks, why not allow an open, rigorous debate to really identify what does not work in this bill in order to try to improve it?