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

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise tonight to begin debate on the second reading of Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act.

Canada has long recognized that explosive remnants of war, such as those caused by cluster munitions, are a serious humanitarian concern. They maim and kill innocent civilians around the world. They have a detrimental economic impact, and they hinder access to essential infrastructure.

Deployed from the air or ground, some types of cluster munitions can release dozens, or even hundreds, of smaller submunitions, which can cover a large area quickly. These munitions can have indiscriminate effects, particularly, when they fail to detonate as intended, often causing widespread harm to innocent civilians, especially in heavily populated areas. They can harm and kill innocent civilians, even long after the conflict has ended. Unfortunately, many of these victims are children.

Canada has long played a leading international role in the protection of civilians from the use of conventional weapons that are prone to indiscriminate effects because we have seen the devastating impacts of that use.

Since 2006, our government has contributed to more than 250 projects in this global effort, making us one of the world's top contributors.

More recently, in February of this year, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs, Americas and Consular Affairs, while in Colombia, announced an additional $2.93 million over four years, to assist landmine survivors, including children and youth, with their recovery and reintegration into society.

I can assure all hon. members that we remain deeply committed to this cause and continue to evaluate possible landmine action projects that will deliver tangible results.

I would now like to address Bill S-10, which I believe would fully implement our legislative requirements under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Canada was a key participant throughout the negotiations of the convention. We are proud to have been among its first 94 signatories in December 2008.

From the beginning, Canada's goal was to strike a balance between a commitment to the elimination of cluster munitions and effective, legitimate and important security considerations. Bill S-10 would do just that.

During negotiations, we committed to the eventual elimination of these weapons, but we also had to recognize the reality that not all countries were participating in the negotiations or were ready to commit to a convention. A compromise was needed to allow countries that wanted to renounce cluster munitions and ratify the convention to be able to engage in military co-operation and operations with countries that intended to retain these weapons for the time being.

The compromise that was reached set out that these military activities would be permitted on the basis that the state parties would engage in diplomatic advocacy to urge non-state parties to reconsider. That compromise, found in article 21, was critical to allowing Canada and its allies to join the convention. Canada had a clear mandate in negotiations. We have always been open and transparent in exactly what we wanted to accomplish. It is important to note that this was not just the Canadian position but was shared by other countries. The provision of article 21 was necessary to bring others on board.

Bill S-10, when enacted, would prohibit the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, movement, import, and export of cluster munitions. It would also prohibit the stockpiling of cluster munitions in Canada, through the proposed offence of possession. This offence would cover any form of possession, including stockpiling, and would easily be enforced and, if necessary, prosecuted in Canada's criminal justice system.

Bill S-10 would also prohibit anyone from aiding or abetting another person in the commission of a prohibited activity. This would capture a number of potential cross-border scenarios where people or organizations subject to Canadian law engage in activities that are prohibited by the convention. It would also ensure that those who are subject to Canadian law could be prosecuted for the offences in Canada.

For example, the convention does not require state bodies to criminalize investment. However, liability for aiding and abetting, as set out in the bill, would include investment scenarios in which there is sufficient intention and connection between the investment and the prohibited activity to meet Canadian charter and criminal law requirements.

We recognize that one of the most discussed aspects of the convention relates to article 29, which specifically allows state parties to engage in military co-operation and operations with states that are not party without breaching their obligations. As the convention allows this, the proposed legislation also contains exceptions that would allow Canada to engage in combined military operations and co-operation with states that are not party to the convention. Bill S-10 would preserve Canada's ability to work alongside our allies, and it would provide Canadian Forces members and civilians with them assurances that they would not face criminal liability when doing their jobs.

For Canada, military co-operation and operations with other states that currently do not intend to ratify the convention, such as the United States, are of central importance to our security and defence policy. Again, it is vital that our men and women in uniform are not unjustly accused of criminal conduct and are in no way compromised in doing their jobs or what we ask of them in the interest of national security and defence.

Even in the context of military co-operation, the convention reiterates that state parties shall not engage in specified activities that are fully within their control. Under Bill S-10, Canadian Armed Forces members would be prohibited from using cluster munitions in their operations. They would not be able to request their use if the choice of munitions was under exclusive Canadian control, even in the context of joint military operations. In addition, and going beyond what is required by the convention, as a matter of policy, the Canadian Forces would prohibit personnel on exchange, secondment or attachment with allied forces from themselves using cluster munitions and from training and instructing in the direct use of cluster munitions. The Canadian Forces would also prohibit, as a matter of policy, the transportation of any cluster munitions aboard Canadian assets.

As the prohibiting cluster munitions act makes its way through the legislative process, our government has already taken concrete steps to fulfill its commitment under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The Canadian Armed Forces has removed its remaining stockpiles of cluster munitions from active service and has already begun the process of destroying them. We are confident that the destruction will be completed within the timeframe required by the convention. It is important to note that Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions in its operations.

We are already active in promoting the universalization and implementation of the convention with international partners, and we will continue doing so. As I have previously stated, our government is among the top international donors for addressing the impact of the explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

Knowing the humanitarian devastation caused by the explosive remnants of war, Canada is fully committed to the goals of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and to implementing our requirements under the convention. We are proud to have tabled this legislation, and we are particularly proud of the important role played in Canada to get us here today. It is my hope that all parties will recognize the essential balance between legitimate security and humanitarian concerns and will fully support Bill S-10.

I was just listening to the House leader talking about being very much concerned about our party, and comparing us to the Liberal Party on the other side. However, I want to say that he was in this House and the New Democrats were there as well.

Just because they have moved over here, it does not mean they have suddenly become more concerned about the running of this operation. Let me be very blunt and very clear. This government is committed to working for Canadians to ensure an economic environment, and that is the creation of jobs. Our budget implementation act is there to ensure that our country meets the obligations of ensuring that its citizens have jobs, the ability to educate their children and to have a life that is decent.

Under the New Democrats, if given to them, we would be in very big trouble, in a total economic disaster. It is for that reason they lost the election in British Columbia, because British Columbia was not willing to accept the NDP doctrine of stopping economic progress. They should learn from that instead of giving us lectures about how to run the country.

This government is extremely focused on where we are headed. I want to thank the hon. member, but we will not take his advice.

Bill S-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a good idea. I move:

That, in relation to Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is number 45; here we go again. This is 45 times that the Conservative government has brought in closure. It is a government whose members said they were going to do things differently; and, not once, not twice, but 45 times, they have broken that promise they made, how many years ago?

It is important to understand the legislation we are going to be debating. It is on cluster munitions. This is a very serious treaty that we signed onto. The bill comes from the Senate where there is testimony from witnesses who condemn this bill. In fact, most people who went to speak to members on the other side said that this bill in its present form is retrograde. It would undermine the spirit of the treaty.

So let us get this straight. We have a government that brought in at midnight, a week or so ago, this bill to the House. The Conservatives had one speaker on it at midnight; that is how seriously they take it. They then brought in closure on it. After having heard what happened in the Senate, they feel that the bill is okay the way it is, because I suspect that they are going to ram it through. After we have watched this bill come from the other side, not from this place, and after we have seen it brought up for a couple of minutes after midnight, by the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, and after we have seen what the Conservatives are doing on issues like the arms trade treaty, we certainly need a lot more debate on this. We need to take it more seriously, and we need to see amendments.

Are the government members actually going to listen to what Canadians are saying on this bill? Are they going to listen to witnesses who condemn this bill in its present form? I know the minister knows this. I have talked to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know the Minister of National Defence knows the criticisms of this bill. He knows that if it is passed in its present form, many people will say it is better not to bring in enacting legislation because it would undermine the spirit of it.

Therefore, why is the government rushing this through again? Why are the Conservatives bringing in closure on a bill that is so very important? This is about Canada's reputation on the international stage. Why closure, why this bill in its present form? And will they allow amendments this time, or are they just going to shut it down like they always do?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. friend, and I understand his point of view. However, the reality is that this effort to bring forward both the convention and now the accompanying legislation has been under way since 2008. The member has read the issue and has said it is a very serious one; it is one that has far-reaching implications and in which Canada has exhibited leadership. We were there in the early days of the negotiation to ensure that we were complying with both the spirit and the letter of the law. This is now the time to step forward, bring the legislation to fruition and allow Canada to go forward and ratify.

This prohibiting cluster munitions act would fully implement the legislative commitments that are there under the convention, which the hon. member mentioned. It would strike the balance between the humanitarian obligations, which are very real; we know the grave implications that come about with the use of cluster munitions. As well, it would preserve our national security and defence interests. I add that, because of the realities, that we work with other NATO allies, most notably the United States of America, in missions that very much have a humanitarian component as was the case in Afghanistan, to comply with some of the amendments and the position taken by the member opposite would prohibit that international contribution.

Therefore, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated quite clearly in his testimony in the other place, this is an honourable compromise. This is the way to move the legislation forward, to move forward with a ratification of the convention, and allow us to continue to act interoperably with our allies.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have found in recent weeks that the government is short on inspiration. No one really knows what direction it wants to take. The schedule changes randomly. As my colleague, the foreign affairs critic, has said, the government introduced a very significant but very flawed bill.

Why is this government introducing such a significant bill at the last minute? This bill has international implications for Canada.

Also, why is the government imposing a gag order and bypassing important steps, thereby preventing this significantly flawed bill from being properly studied?

What is going on? What are the government's priorities, especially in terms of Canada's reputation on the world stage?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to what it means for Canada is action, not words. It means we are actually implementing and moving forward on this important issue.

I note that the legislation would very much preserve Canada's ability to continue to work internationally, but, at the same time, it implements Canada's commitments to the convention, as is in line with our key allies. I note that Australia and the United Kingdom, and many of our NATO allies, many of the countries we have worked with abroad, are in fact taking the same steps.

My colleague from Ottawa Centre a moment ago mentioned that there are those who are critics of the legislation. That may be, but I also note that there are a number of NGOs calling on Canada to ratify the convention. They are calling on us to move forward and ensure that Bill S-10 is enacted as quickly as possible.

Let us not let perfection get in the way of progress on this. Let us allow Canada to move forward, to step out on the international stage, as we have throughout this process, as we have been leaders in this process, and move this legislation forward. That is what we seek to do. That is why we are taking this step. This legislation is important when it comes to Canada meeting its international commitments, protecting civilians, protecting those affected by cluster munitions, and allowing Canada to continue to play a significant role internationally.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the 45th time allocation motion. This makes no sense.

Does the government intend to move time allocation motions for all bills until the end of the session? Are the Conservatives planning on proroguing so they can pack up and go home because of all the scandals coming out these days? Are they not willing to answer any more questions from parliamentarians or the public?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but what I can say is that on this particular piece of legislation, we have a history that goes back to 2008. We have international commitments that we seek to comply with. This legislation would allow us to do just that.

This bill is very much in keeping with the intent for Canada to continue to play a leading role internationally in addressing the humanitarian impact of land mines and explosive remnants of war. This bill is also in keeping with Canada's commitment since 2006 to continue with the disarmament of these types of munitions that have such a devastating impact. Canada has contributed more than $200 million through 250 projects internationally to this global effort, which makes Canada one of the top contributors to this issue. That is, again, in keeping with the spirit of the legislation and the ratification of this convention.

We are deeply committed to this cause, as witnessed by this legislation and international contributions. The total amount of support by Canada continues toward the area of mine action and the issues that vary from year to year. We want to be consistent in demonstrating that, both to our citizens and those internationally who watch these issues very closely. That is why we think it is time for progress, it is time to advance the legislation, and advance this cause generally.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for answering many of the questions on this bill, as the NDP critic mentioned the other night at midnight when I spoke on this bill and gave the government's position.

What is important is that Canada has been a very strong contributor toward the damages of the remnants of war, mines and cluster munitions. The minister just mentioned the $200 million. I was in Cambodia earlier this year, where I saw a massive effort being made in war countries in removing mines and cluster munitions that have been left behind and have been injuring children. I have been to Mozambique and saw how much damage has been done to livestock, as well as to young children playing there, as well as in Angola. The Government of Canada is very proud to support all the things it has supported, over and above this bill. We should not look only at this bill but the larger picture of what Canada has been doing.

I would like the minister to elaborate on what Canada has done in meeting the goals in the bill but that are also part of Canada's core foreign policy.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his understanding of the far-reaching implications of this, and the fact that this is but one piece of a larger puzzle when it comes to Canada's international efforts vis-à-vis demining efforts and the use of this legislation to help implement the convention banning cluster munitions.

In his extensive travels, I know the member has on many occasions encountered representatives of nations around the world who are very grateful for Canada's efforts. Whether it be in some of the conflict zones in which Canada has been involved over the years, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and more recently, Afghanistan and Libya, we have seen the devastating effects and countries that are mined to the max, where the remnants of war have such grave implications particularly for schoolchildren.

It is something that we need to reflect on. The fact is there are many countries where the mere effort of going to school or playing in a soccer field or going out with friends to take part in the simplest of activities can result in death or grave injury because of munitions left in the ground.

Our country has in fact played a leading role over the years, internationally, in addressing this humanitarian impact of land mines. We continue to work with organizations, with other countries, to meet that standard and to play that type of leadership role on the international stage.

I mentioned some of the earlier commitments that we have made monetarily. Canada, for example, provided $16.8 million just two years ago to support victim rehabilitation, and clearance and capacity building in nine countries: Colombia, Afghanistan, Cambodia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Libya, Jordan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Palau.

Dating further back, in 2007-08, our contribution was $51.4 million. That year we ranked third overall in our contribution.

These are just a few examples of how we remain deeply committed to this cause. We continue to elevate possible mine action projects that will deliver tangible results. Here at home, this is an opportunity for us to send a very clear signal of that commitment, by passing this legislation, by moving forward with the ratification of the convention. I would encourage all members to support that effort.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that the minister is attempting to put on the record, but it is not the issue of the substance of the bill.

What we should really be talking about is the attitude of this majority government and how that attitude has actually shifted. The direction we are going in is very negative. Canadians are becoming more and more aware how this Prime Minister, more than any other prime minister in the history of our country, tries to limit and prevent members of Parliament from being able to debate important issues that come before the House of Commons.

That is the issue. We have a government that has now introduced time allocation 45 times. It is unprecedented. It is limiting the abilities of individual members of Parliament to share their thoughts and their ideas, and hold the government accountable for the type of legislation that it is bringing forward.

It does not matter what the minister has to say about the legislation right now at this very moment. What we are concerned about is why the change in attitude. Why is the majority Conservative government not allowing members of this House to have due process on a wide variety of issues that are important to each and every Canadian?

My question is to the Government House Leader, not the minister. Why does the government continue to limit debate on a wide spectrum of legislation when Canadians have a right to have their members of Parliament standing in their place, being heard?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I sense some degree of frustration on the part of the member. He stated that this is not the issue. The issue is in fact moving this legislation forward.

We feel it is a priority for our government. We feel that we need continued efforts, consistent with Canada's principled position on the world stage, to play an important role when it comes to the banning of munitions and the demining issue that Canada championed some years ago, one in which his party played an important role—

[An hon. member]

He left.