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.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the term the member opposite has just used, let us open up the debate a little bit wider. How is it that the NDP, the party opposite, would even weigh in on this debate? It relates to a necessary balance that we, as a government, are seeking to strike, and believe we have struck in this legislation, between our disarmament obligations, which run very deep in this country, and our obligations as an ally, where interoperability is not an option. It is something that is codified in the very DNA of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is something without which missions such as Libya and Afghanistan would never have happened. The defence of North America, the defence of Europe and the naval operation in the Arabian Sea would not have happened, not just without interoperability but without the ability to exchange officers, sailors, air crew and soldiers.

How does the NDP even deign to rise and comment on this debate, when every time legislation comes forward, budgets come forward and debates come forward in the House on giving equipment, funding and training and even approving missions for the Canadian Armed Forces they are against it? The no-defence party is here--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we have been hearing is beneath debate in the House. I am really disappointed with the way this is being dealt with. That we are disabled from talking about a principle of humanity that underlies this treaty and how it relates to this exalted principle of interoperability the member seems to reify is absolutely nuts.

I am going to quote back to the member what he said when he was criticizing the Liberals. He said that "in the heat of combat, most of them wanted the best for our troops". He then went on to say that they sent troops into battle "under-equipped", and he used that to say that somehow or other they had lost their way and were being hypocritical. Frankly, the whole way that played out sounded to me just like the defence of the actual use of cluster munitions.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that he actually is not, in a veiled way, defending the use of cluster munitions through this exaltation of the principle of interoperability?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in any way advocating the use of cluster munitions. If the member had been listening to my remarks, he would know that my only involvement with cluster munitions in Afghanistan was trying not to be a victim of them.

It is the government that is bringing in legislation to make Canada a state party to this convention, which we were not at the time of combat in Afghanistan, the convention having only been formulated four and a half years ago.

The real question is why the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Vancouver East really show absolutely no respect, not only for our military but for our main ally, which plays a role in the security of North America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and indeed in anchoring peace and stability in the world.

I would like the member, if he gets up sometime tonight, to say that he believes in this, that he believes in the mission in Afghanistan and that he believes in our alliance with the United States. Quite frankly, we do not hear it from the NDP very often.

We know that many of them, through the history of the CCF and the NDP, were committed to taking Canada out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to having no military relations to speak of with the United States. That is the kind of thing we are hearing tonight with the sanctimonious rhetoric and this wanton disregard for interoperability.

It was the member for Vancouver East who first called my speech, which was at least an attempt to be substantive on the issue, unparliamentary. Are the NDP members suggesting that we should not discuss military and security topics in this House? That is certainly what it sounded like to us.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what might have been a rhetorical question when he said that he did not know how the NDP could weigh in on this debate. I just wanted to remind my hon. colleague that our party was the only party in this House that opposed Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That position was supported by over 50% of the Canadian population.

Over four million Canadians voted for us in the last election. That is why we are here. That is why we have every right to debate this issue in the House.

The member said that the U.S. is perhaps in a different place than Canada on this treaty. Let us just put it in perspective. There are four billion cluster bombs stockpiled around the world. The United States has a quarter of them. They are not just in a different place; they are in a different universe.

What the member is trying to say to us tonight is that we do not have any right to question their position. We just have an obligation to listen and adhere to their position. We are saying here, and we are actually saying it very clearly, that we support the treaty lock, stock and barrel. We do not support a way in which our position in the world is somehow compromised by this clause on interoperability.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport says that we on this side do whatever the Americans tell us to do. I have news for him. He clearly has not been following the debate. The Americans are not signing this convention. We signed the convention. We are ratifying it. It is a sovereign decision by a Conservative government, and it is a good decision.

Second, the member says that the United States of America, and I think this one is really one for the record books, is in a different universe. What universe is it the member for Davenport is talking about? Is it the universe that does not include a country across the Niagara River, our closest ally with whom we do $2 billion in business a day, with whom the city he represents is integrated culturally, socially and economically in every possible way? Does he call that a different universe?

What greater measure, what greater indicator of a lack of respect for the United States, its role in the world, its role as an ally, in security and in military affairs could there be than to say that it is in a different universe?

I would like to close by simply reminding the NDP that with its position, opposing the combat mission in Afghanistan, it joined a grand total of zero governments of NATO countries. There were no NATO countries that failed to deploy to Afghanistan. It would have been the only one, and that is why it is not fit to govern. It will not govern. This government will do everything in its power to point out the absolute bankruptcy of the NDP on these issues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we just listened to the parliamentary secretary tie himself into knots in his pretzel logic. He sounded more like a cheerleader for cluster bombs than an opponent of cluster bombs. He spent most of his speech justifying places where they maybe need to be used in the interests of some higher power. He sounded like he worked for the NRA, not the peace movement.

It is no surprise that the loophole clause is called chapter 11, because 22 is a multiple, and my colleague has a Catch-22 mentality about the banning of cluster mines that is worthy of Joseph Heller.

I was hoping there would be a serious debate on this issue tonight, because the country is watching. The country was optimistic that we might be taking some tentative measures to reclaim our position in the global community, much as we did when the whole nation got involved in the land mines treaty. School kids got involved. People were proud of our country and of the lead position that we took as part of the international community, whether it was led by Lady Diana or by others in our own country, such as Dr. Samantha Nutt and Lloyd Axworthy. They played powerful roles and made the country proud.

Instead, we took something that was virtuous and had great merit, and then sabotaged and undermined it. We are actually undermining and sabotaging the international community with this loophole clause.

Let me explain.

The parliamentary secretary is laughing. I do not think he realizes how bad he is making our country look with his shenanigans.

I do not know if he is responsible for the sabotage. I do not think he is that high up the totem pole in his rank. I am going to back up a second while he is still here, while we have his attention and while he is still lucid, because it is getting late and he may be reverting to the chitter-chatter that goes on to try to undermine any kind of meaningful debate in this place.

I will read clause 6. I am going to go through a few parts of it.

Clause 6 would meet the nod test with most Canadians and in fact would make most Canadians proud that we signed on to this treaty in 2008. Clause 6 states:

—it is prohibited for any person to

(a) use a cluster munition...

(b) develop, make, acquire or possess, a cluster munition...

(c) move a cluster munition...

(d) import or export a cluster munition...

(e) attempt to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(f) aid, abet or counsel another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(g) conspire with another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);...

All of that sounds great. It sounds very thorough and comprehensive that Canada will have no part of cluster munitions in any way, shape or form, including the manufacture, the shipping, the export, the sale, the handling or the use. We are out.

We are out until we go a few pages further, to a much larger clause that goes on for a full two pages. It is clause 11, which states:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person...from

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

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster [musician]...

(c) using, acquiring or possessing a cluster munition...

These are all the exceptions.

Clause 11 goes on to state:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation...from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to [use a munition]...

In other words, it gives a road map for all the ways that Canada can participate in the use of cluster musicians.

Did I say “musicians” again? That is what members are laughing about. I am a little upset, and they ought to cut me some slack because I have never been so disappointed, I do not think, in my 16 years here.

There are many things wrong with how this came before us, but I think it is absolutely tragic that we are missing this opportunity to accurately reflect the mood of the nation and engage in a robust denunciation of cluster musicians.

Now I am going to say it all the time.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I am going to rise on a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As a member of the musicians union, my colleague from Davenport is probably profoundly offended. They do tend to cluster. They travel in groups because there is safety in numbers.

Let me back up and start over again somewhat.

We should take note, as I always do, that this bill is called Bill “S”-10. Let me begin by saying that I profoundly resent the fact that these bills are originating in the Senate. Nobody gave a mandate to senators to generate and create legislation. It used to be a rare exception that a bill came to this chamber from the Senate. In actual fact, even though we signed this treaty in 2008, the Senate got it in April 2012. Notwithstanding the urgency that the Conservatives would have us believe that this needs to be dealt with today and tonight, and that they even invoked closure to bring that about, it took four years before they even tabled it in the Senate, never mind the House of Commons.

The Senate had it from April until December 6, when it was introduced into this chamber. That is eight or nine months that they lollygagged along with it and did whatever with it they do over there, and on December 6 it finally got introduced here. Then on May 29, 2013, at 1:00 a.m., the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood up and spoke to this bill for about eight or ten minutes before adjournment occurred.

Sometimes that is all we need from the parliamentary secretary to foreign affairs. Eight or ten minutes is plenty.

We had 10 minutes of debate on this bill, a bill that I believe the whole country could and should be interested in for any number of good reasons. No sooner do we deal with it for 15 minutes than today we again get closure.

We ask ourselves how often the government uses closure on bills. The answer is that at every single stage of every single bill, we get time allocation and closure, which shuts down the debate.

If I can preface my criticism of this bill, I have to begin by criticizing its origin, which was in the other place, the Senate, where they have no business, no mandate and nobody elected them. They have no legitimacy in terms of generating legislation. They have no right to have first dibs at it for approval in principle, et cetera. When we finally get it here, it is already in this form as we have it.

I listened to a number of comments on clause 11 throughout this debate. It not only would give the escape clause, the loophole by which Canada could in fact participate in the use of cluster bombs in partnership with other countries that are not signatory, the most obvious one being the United States, but it would actually sabotage and undermine the integrity of the entire international operation.

I do not think people realize the full depth and breadth of what we are dealing with here. My colleague from Toronto Centre quite rightly pointed out, who is crafting our foreign policy? Who is dictating this kind of thing? This is not the will of Canadians. I can assure members that if they put this to Canadians in any kind of a full debate or information package or opportunity to comment, they would be horrified.

Our proudest achievements recently and in the last decade were, first, not going into Iraq. I guarantee that if the government of the day had been in power then, we would have been in Iraq. There is no doubt about it. The second was the land mine treaty. People felt good again about being Canadian.

Now incrementally, bit by bit, we have had our international reputation undermined to the point where commentators from around the world are wondering what the heck is going on with this country.

We have people like former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser saying, “It's a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.” That is a pretty strong condemnation from a former prime minister of a Commonwealth country.

Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for mine action at DFAIT, the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”.

We are not leading the pack anymore. We are not leading the parade. We are the guy behind the elephants with a push broom, following the parade.

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

Our role as the international good guys, as the Boy Scouts of the world on many issues, is to elevate the standard of behaviour and performance. Maybe that means standing up on our hind legs to our American neighbour sometimes and saying, “We're with you. We're brothers-in-arms in almost every respect, but if you're using cluster munitions in this particular conflict, we're out. We have legislation in our country that doesn't permit us to go anywhere near it”.

That may in fact give pause to those countries that have yet to ratify. They may realize that there is a cost, a price to pay, if they are not going to join the international community in its growing condemnation of these cluster munitions.

The horror of them is well known and has been well documented by many other speakers. I would be the first to admit I am not an expert in foreign affairs, but I do have a innate gut sense, I believe, of right and wrong, and in this case we are dead wrong. I am embarrassed by our position on this piece of legislation and I am not trying to overstate things.

I hear the chatter over there. I hope they are proud of themselves. I do not know how they ever came to this point of view. Who was pulling their strings? Who would even devise and design this clause 11 to so thoroughly contradict the letter and the spirit of the law?

Surely that is our obligation when we enter into an international convention or treaty. We commit ourselves. We stipulate ourselves to both the letter and the spirit of the law. We promise to uphold that, to propagate it, to promote it and advocate it. That is how these things spread, by the leadership of enlightened western developed nations like Canada in elevating the standard of behaviour even in the event of armed conflict.

The prohibitions include to “...receive, comfort or assist another person, knowing that the person has committed, or has aided or abetted in the commission of, any act”. Those were described earlier, and this is how contradictory it is: it is even an offence under this bill to lend succour or support to anyone who is participating in any of those mentioned offences, yet clause 11 clearly states that we can be standing side by side with the person who is offending these points in clause 6. They are not stipulated to the convention.

Therefore, we can help them. We can carry the material for them. We can deliver it to them so that they can bomb people with it. We can do virtually anything to aid and abet our NATO colleagues in the United States.

[Brian Storseth]

Give me a break.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That is not true.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, that is my reading of it. I would be interested to hear how my parliamentary secretary colleague would say that I am wrong, because the understanding of any objective outsider reading this would be that there are exemptions and loopholes here that one could drive a truck through. It makes a mockery of the entire initiative in both the letter and the spirit of the law.

I am saying this trying not to be inflammatory, but the only reason that the Conservatives could possibly find to move time allocation and closure on this particular debate is that they would be embarrassed if school kids and activists around the country got wind of it and laid their eyes on this unworthy document and were aware that we were going to be facilitating those who use cluster munitions.

Never mind participating in the ban. We may in fact dispose of our stockpile in our country, but we have full permission to do anything necessary to enable countries that do have a history of using them regularly to carry on using them.

One of the most moving things I ever saw was when I had the opportunity to go to Geneva. There is a statue of a kitchen chair in Geneva twice as big as the Speaker's throne. I would say it is probably 30 feet high, with one leg blown off and simply splintered. It became the international symbol of land mines. It captured the imagination of the whole international community, I believe. It serves as a stark reminder that there are some things we just will not tolerate.

Again, as other speakers have mentioned, the face of warfare has changed so dramatically that it really becomes a game of who is willing to sacrifice the most civilians and not necessarily armed combatants. It is not necessarily soldiers versus soldiers any more, but how much brutality one is willing to cope with before one yields. That is the nature of war, and the victims of war are more often civilians and innocent bystanders.

It is cluster munitions perhaps more than anything else, now that land mines are being eradicated and remediation is under way to clear the hundreds of millions of mines that have been placed around world. Now the world has turned its sights on cluster munitions to rid us of this scourge, yet Canada is not doing its part. We are not pulling our weight. We are falling short and dropping the ball. We are failing innocent civilians around the world by not speaking out and not using everything possible to denounce, deter, restrict and move toward a global outlawing of these cluster musicians.

Therefore, clause 11 is why we will oppose the proposed legislation at this stage. We do not believe we could even support it in principle. I am sure politics will be played with this. The Conservatives will be putting out press releases saying that the NDP has voted against banning cluster munitions. I am sure they will play that game, but this is one of those debates that needs a more extensive treatment, because we can point back to the Conservatives as kowtowing to some greater master, somebody who is pulling their strings and telling them not to pass the legislation without leaving this mega-loophole in.

At committee, there will be an attempt to delete clause 11, or at least modify it so it does not undermine and completely destroy the intent of the international convention on cluster munitions. I am sure this may not even occur until after we come back in the fall. I doubt very much we will have the opportunity between now and adjournment to give this proposed legislation the complete treatment it deserves.

The Conservatives have been moving closure at every stage of every bill. They have also been manipulating committee. Our parliamentary democracy is in tatters. It is really only a facsimile of a democracy that we have left. All the checks and balances to ensure there is some ability to accommodate the legitimate concerns brought forward by members, other than the actual authors of the bill, have been eradicated.

We are getting pretty tired of this winner-takes-all attitude that the Conservatives have exhibited. I am surprised they play this kind of cheap, petty politics with such a significant humanitarian initiative. It disappoints me, and I say that in all sincerity. I do not even feel like yelling and screaming about it. It makes me sad more than angry.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to be accused of praising a very dangerous munition. As part of a series of speeches on this side, we spoke in support of a convention to ban that munition, which has never been used by the Canadian Forces. Very limited stockpiles within the Canadian Forces are already on the way to being destroyed.

Let me remind the member opposite that this is a measure brought in by this Conservative government. The member opposite spent most of his speech calling for a convention on the total prohibition and ban of cluster musicians. He does not realize that this will lose the NDP members a lot of votes, the few votes they have left in the city of Toronto. The member for Davenport and the member for Timmins—James Bay would be affected. It could be the collapse of the party. We are not here to champion that move tonight. We may champion it later.

The only person he could cite in favour of his position was a former Australian politician. Does the member know that Australia, too, has its version of clause 11? It, too, has an exception because it does combat operations with the United States. It wants to continue to be interoperable with the United States.

Does the member opposite understand that the United States still uses these weapons, much as we may regret that fact? It does not use land mines.

Finally, does the member acknowledge and support the fact that Canada is a member of NATO and Norad? Does he support those alliances?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not call for a total ban on musicians. I could perhaps be some musicians. Bagpipes come to mind. Some people say that the best use for bagpipes is to use them as kindling for a bonfire of accordions. That comes to mind as well. I do not mean to offend any cultural or ethnic group. There are a lot of Scots and Ukrainians.

Ninety-eight percent of the victims of cluster bombs are civilians, not military. I know Canada is going to destroy our limited stockpiles. I also know the United States has no intention of doing so.

The parliamentary secretary might think I spent a lot of my speech bashing musicians, but he spent a lot of his speech as a cheerleader, a champion and an advocate of the sometimes unfortunate necessary use of cluster bombs. It was a disgrace.

We listened on this side and we could not believe our ears. He was tying himself in a knot with some kind of pretzel reasoning, saying that the Conservatives wanted to ban cluster bombs, but sometimes when it was necessary to use them, they could not block their use by allies in NATO. We do not have to carry and deliver them as is contemplated in this clause 11. We do not have to facilitate them or help them promote the use of cluster bombs.

With a clear denunciation, maybe even our colleagues and our partners like the United States might take note that an enlightened country like Canada will not tolerate it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in defence of all musicians in the House.

Let us just bring it back to cluster munitions. We hear the government side blithely say that it supports the banning of cluster munitions. What I would like my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to comment on is that if the government is so steadfastly in support of this treaty, which we are, why would the chief negotiator say in the media that he was removed from the job partly because of objections from senior U.S. officials to his aggressive stance in the talks?

That raises this question: who is driving the ship on foreign policy for Canada if the chief negotiator was removed because of complaints from the U.S. side? Could my colleague respond to this query?