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.

[Farida Deif, Canada Director, Human Rights Watch Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of Parliament, for inviting me to appear before this committee.

My name is Farida Deif. I'm the Canada director at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, as you know, is an independent international human rights organization that monitors human rights abuses in nearly 100 countries, including here in Canada.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to share thoughts on Bill C-281. In the nearly seven years that I've been in this role, I've engaged extensively with Global Affairs Canada colleagues, both in Ottawa and at Canadian missions around the world. I've also worked on a range of policy files with relevant staff in the offices of five different foreign ministers appointed during this period.

While I've heard more times than I can count that a certain human rights crisis or the case of a prisoner detained in violation of international law was “top of mind”, as civil society we're often not privy to much tangible or concrete information in terms of the specific actions taken by the government on their behalf. I certainly welcome the proposed amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to include reporting requirements relating to international human rights. With enough concrete detail, these annual reports could be an incredibly useful tool for Canadian civil society and the human rights sector writ large.

These reports could also create a yardstick to measure the implementation of GAC's own “Voices at Risk: Canada's Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders”. As noted in the guidelines, Canadian government officials should request to attend trials and visit detainees in prison even when the detaining authority is unlikely to approve the request, in order to demonstrate that there is “continued international interest in the case.”

These guidelines further note that attendance by Canadian officials at trials or hearings—“a clear and visible expression of Canada's concern”—can be helpful by “allowing for detailed tracking of legal proceedings, observing whether due process is respected, and ensuring up-to-date information on cases of particular interest”. Seeking to visit a detainee imprisoned in violation of international human rights law can also be a meaningful way of showing support to the individual, assessing their treatment in detention and registering condemnation with the detaining authority.

This is why the current amendment on human rights reporting should include detailed information not only on those prisoners for whom the government is actively advocating for their release but also on any efforts to attend trials and hearings, the number of requests for prison visits made by Canadian missions and authorities and the response of detaining authorities. Of course, in some cases, it would be important to anonymize the names of prisoners to mitigate security risks and possible retaliation.

I'd like to turn now to the bill's proposed amendments to the cluster munitions act. Human Rights Watch has played a leading role in documenting the harm to civilians caused by cluster munitions, including most recently in the Ukraine conflict. Our research and analysis has informed the negotiation and implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

In 2012, my colleagues in the arms division testified before the Senate foreign affairs and international trade committee on the then Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. We also submitted written testimony to the House of Commons standing committee highlighting several key provisions that would benefit from revision or clarification, including the need to explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions.

As you know, the preamble of the Convention on Cluster Munitions articulates its goal to eliminate cluster munitions and to bring an end to the suffering they cause. The current bill would advance that objective by reducing funding for the production of cluster munitions. It could also help Canada meet its obligations under article 9 to “take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to implement this Convention”. Article 1(1)(c) of the convention makes it unlawful for state parties to assist anyone with any activity prohibited by the convention, and investment in cluster munition production is a form of assistance. The funding of entities that develop and produce cluster munitions and their components allows them and encourages them to keep doing so.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-281 thus moves Canada one step closer to ensuring that it implements the convention in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law. In the process, it also provides much-needed clarity to financial and other institutions relating to the prohibition on assistance with production of cluster munitions. The amendment is also in line with measures taken by Canada's allies.

Since 2007, 11 states parties to the convention have enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits investment in these weapons. Nearly 40 states have stated that they regard investments in cluster munitions production as a form of assistance prohibited by the convention. It is also important to note that like-minded governments have worked to close any remaining indirect investment loopholes. For example, government pension funds in Australia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden have either fully or partially withdrawn investments, or banned investments, in cluster munitions producers.

We strongly support these efforts to explicitly prohibit investment in the production of cluster munitions. We also support any efforts, as mentioned by others, to close remaining loopholes in the existing law that will undercut Canada's ability to fulfill the humanitarian potential of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters and your efforts to advance Canada's leadership on these critical fronts.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member and esteemed colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I know that my colleagues are tired, but before I begin my speech I would like to ask them not to shout and interrupt me and instead listen to what I have to say. They can ask me questions afterward.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6, which is extremely important. How can we ratify a convention if we change it by adding amendments that will lead to a multitude of loopholes? It is like a contract. When we sign a contract, we are bound by it. The contract becomes null and void if we include a clause whereby it applies to us only if we decide it does. The same principle applies to a convention.

Why sign a convention if, in any event, we are going to pass a bill in the Parliament of Canada saying that the convention only applies when we say it does? The government is essentially trying to tell us that it considers the convention to be null and void. It is trying to shirk its responsibilities by passing a bill that cancels all the provisions of the convention.

It is important to repeat that Canada's former chief negotiator, Earl Turcotte, resigned because Canada's position on this was too weak. This gives us a taste of this government's approach to negotiating treaties. I would like to quote Earl Turcotte:

He said:

As Head of Delegation, I made all statements for the Canada during plenary negotiations. I know what I said on behalf of our country, with political and official-level support at that time. I also know how it was understood and ultimately agreed by all 108 negotiating states...

Bill C-6 constitutes a reversal of many of the key commitments Canada made during negotiations and by signing the convention in 2008 and is an affront to other states that negotiated in good faith.

According to the country's former chief negotiator, Canada is breaking the promises it made to the states that negotiated the convention. This is proof that the Conservative government negotiates in bad faith both here and abroad. Mr. Turcotte was a leader on treaties about this kind of weapon. He also negotiated the landmine treaty. The man's credibility is solid.

When Bill C-6 was debated in June 2013 as Bill S-10, Canada was in the process of sabotaging the UN Human Rights Committee's negotiations on sexual violence in conflict zones. The government refused to adopt a motion or make amendments to a motion about sexual violence against women and children in conflict zones. Why? Believe it or not, it was just because the negotiations and the discussions included a section about abortion, reproductive choices and women who are victims of rape.

Clearly the Conservatives have gotten stuck in an ideological rut since becoming a majority government. Their ideologies are right-wing. Whether we are talking about weapons, sexual violence, or the arms trade, Canada opposes those principles. This is about saving lives, not about—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to express a few thoughts on what the Government of Canada could have and maybe should have been doing to say to the rest of the world that Canada wants to play a strong leadership role in an area where there is a great deal of concern. That opportunity has been somewhat lost through the way the government has brought forward flawed legislation.

I approach the discussion as a member who served in the Canadian Forces. It was not necessarily through my direct service that I acquired experience. It was more from things that occurred indirectly. As members of the forces, we are quite often required to get out and meet with veterans. I served during the 1980s, when there were a significant number of World War II veterans. Some members might be aware that cluster bombs were first used in the Second World War. They were used by the Germans.

I have had many discussions with World War II veterans in my capacity as a member of the Canadian Forces. Unlike what we might see in movies that glamorize war to a certain degree, there are a great number of horror stories.

These are real people. We thank God for them, and we compliment them for their bravery and all the freedoms they have garnered for us. However, the war and its impact on the lives of those who directly fought in it is profound.

The types of weapons that were used will have had a significant impact on the veterans' views. We talked about D-Day. They were getting off landing craft and charging onto a beach with their brothers falling to their left and right as they ploughed their way through all sorts of war machinery and ammunition being aimed at them.

Something that can be gained by reflecting on our past actions and wars. Weapons have caused so much collateral damage that we would find that veterans and current members of the regular forces and the reserve forces would have strong opinions about the issue we are talking about this evening. I have often made reference to some of the horror stories that are out there. I can assure members that there is no lack of opinions among members of our forces.

I made the assertion that I believe that no member in the chamber is going to advocate the benefits of this type of weapon. It should never be glorified in any fashion whatsoever. We recognize the harm that has been done by this type of munition.

When I stand to speak to Bill C-6, a number of things come to my mind. The first is getting people to realize what cluster munitions are. A bomb can come from the ground or from a plane. In essence, it is a hollow shell that will open and within the cavity will be anywhere from a half-dozen up to 2,000-plus munitions that are designed to explode, but not necessarily once they hit the ground. There are all sorts of different types of cluster bombs. Sometimes a cluster bomb will release its contents and as it hits the ground, there will be a massive explosion that will cover the size of a football field. Anything within that perimeter will be virtually destroyed. That includes the loss of lives and limbs and horrendous destruction.

What we do not necessarily appreciate is that when those 2,000 little explosive devices hit the ground, a high percentage never explode. We are not talking about two or three or four; we are talking about hundreds. As some people have referenced, they are not necessarily obvious bombs that someone who is walking in a field would notice and know was a bomb.

Let us say that 2,000 are dropped. Some would estimate that as many as 400 to 600 would not be set off. Even after the war has come to an end, 400 to 600 little bombs from one cluster bomb could be waiting to be set off. That is why in countries where there are no active wars, there is still destruction and the loss of life and limbs. The bombs are still in the fields and have never been set off or found. It is a very costly venture, after a war, to identify the areas where there is a high concentration of cluster bombs and to send a workforce to clear the ground.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that we came up with the resources to send in massive numbers of well-protected people and machinery to identify and dispose of those hundreds of thousands of little bombs. We would not get all of them. Thousands would remain, even if we could get the money to do the clearing that many believe is absolutely essential. It is exceptionally costly, and in reality, for many of the countries that have this issue, they just do not have the resources to deal with it.

As a result, what ends up happening is that someone farming in a field or a child playing in a field will find a bomb that has not gone off. Then there is yet another horror story. We know that when they are set off from the ground or from an aircraft that the damage is indiscriminate. They do not discriminate between civilians and military personnel, or children and people in their thirties or well into their sixties. They affect everyone. In fact, during World War II, when the Germans first used cluster bombs, they were not designed to attack just the military. They were meant to cause damage to both the military and civilians, and they were exceptionally effective.

These bombs are designed to kill personnel and destroy vehicles. There is a high level of recognition around the world of how destructive these bombs can be. As a result, there was a Convention on Cluster Munitions. It took place in Ireland in 2008.

I have suggested that the Government of Canada had an opportunity to play a strong international leadership role on what is a very important issue. Unfortunately, it has fallen short in two ways. First, it has not approached this issue in a timely fashion. Remember, this agreement was signed back in 2008, and here we are in 2014. One could question why it took the government so long to bring forward this legislation.

Well over 100 states signed the cluster munitions convention. Approximately 80 of them, maybe a little more, have actually ratified it. Canada was one of the countries that signed, but we still have not ratified it. One would have thought that Canada was in a wonderful position to demonstrate that we understand the need to deal with the issue in a tangible way.

I have had the opportunity to raise this in some of the questions and answers. This is the second part that I am making reference to. That is the loss of opportunity to demonstrate international leadership. I made reference to the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

The similarities are amazing in terms of how countries from around the world came together in 1997 and this took place here in Ottawa. It is known as the Ottawa treaty. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and someone I am very proud of, local Manitoba member of Parliament Lloyd Axworthy who was the minister of foreign affairs at the time, went out of their way trying to make something happen. It is interesting that shortly after that Mr. Axworthy was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize because of his efforts.

In the late nineties, Canada was able to demonstrate very strong tangible leadership on this and it had an impact. Yes, there are some countries around the world that still have not signed on and ratified, or chosen not to be a part of it, but we did. I am not 100% sure of this, and I suspect if I am wrong my colleagues across the way and my friends in the NDP will quickly point it out, but I believe that there was likely unanimous support at the time here in the House for that. If I am wrong on that point I would ask that members raise the issue in the form of a question.

The difference is that members recognized back then the importance of the issue and how we were able to not only develop the issue and get countries around the world to sign on and ultimately ratify it, but we were also able to get the necessary legislative requirements in Ottawa to ratify it. I believe that all political parties supported it at the time of its passage.

Fast forward that to today. Where are we today? If the truth be known, this is not the first time we have had the bill here. We had the first reading of Bill S-10 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is not the first time we have had this legislation. I would like to think that had the government brought in the legislation and worked with the opposition, we would have been able to amend the bill before us this evening and it could have received the support of all political entities in the House. That is not going to happen because the government has chosen not to reflect what was ultimately wished for in the convention Canada signed on to in 2008.

I would challenge the government to recognize that we are still not too late, that with the right political will, we can make the changes that would in fact make Canada once again demonstrate good, solid, sound leadership. That is the challenge I would leave to the government.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Government of Canada, and based on what we have heard in the Conservatives' speeches, the use of cluster munitions is inconceivable and unacceptable.

Why have we not heard the Government of Canada or the Minister of Foreign Affairs condemn the use of cluster munitions in the current Syrian conflict and take a strong stance on this issue?

When we were dealing with Bill S-10, the parliamentary secretaries at the time told us that Canada had always staunchly defended this position. If so, why did the Conservative government not adopt a strong, clear position on the use of cluster munitions in the Syrian conflict?

Cluster Munitions

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on cluster munitions. The petitioners are saying that they should, indeed, be brought to an end and that Bill S-10 should be amended accordingly to make sure that actually happens.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The convention's preamble states that a state party should never assist anyone to engage in a prohibited activity and should discourage the use of cluster munitions.

We have already heard witnesses in the Senate and stakeholders say that Bill S-10 did not specify that the prohibition to assist applied to direct and indirect investments in the production of cluster munitions and their components.

Although 25 countries—including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and France—have adopted a position whereby investment in the production of cluster munitions is seen as a type of assistance prohibited by the convention, Canada does not seem willing to follow suit.

Could you comment on this government's position? Should that matter be clarified in Bill C-6?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as that of Bill S-10 when it was before the House at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, October 21, 2013, the bill is deemed read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill S-10 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Cluster Munitions

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 26 members of my riding.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to: (a) amend Bill S-10 to close the loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions for any reason, anywhere, at any time, for anyone; (b) include an explicit prohibition on investment in cluster munitions production in Bill S-10; and (c) add mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed by signing the convention on cluster munitions to Bill S-10.

Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

Fighting Foreign Corruption Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, and as we are debating this at second reading, it still has to go to committee.

I have listened with interest to the debate in the House today. It appears that all parties will be supporting this bill. We are debating it in principle but, nevertheless, it is important for us to go through the bill to examine it, as we should all legislation, and then it will go to committee.

I want to begin by saying that these last few weeks in the House have been particularly difficult because the government has used time allocation, a form of closure, I think 47 times, if I am keeping the tab correctly. It is really quite incredible that so much legislation has been rushed through.

We serve our constituents in this place. We do our work in the constituency, but our role in this House is due diligence in examining legislation and going through it. Even if we are going to support it, we have to go through it. That is part of holding the government to account in our parliamentary democracy, so it is very disturbing that we see the pattern over and over again. It has become routine. Other colleagues in the House have commented earlier that bills are now pro forma. We are expected to have a couple of hours of debate and take a cursory look, and then there is a time allocation for going through committee, report stage, and third reading. It is all established by timelines.

As members well know, that is not the way to do parliamentary business.

I wanted to begin my remarks with that because, as someone who has been around here a few years, I have watched the erosion of parliamentary and democratic practice in this House.

I can almost hear the voice of Bill Blaikie in my head, the former member for Winnipeg—Transcona. He was one of those folks in this place who had the long-term memory to know what had changed over the years. When change happens incrementally, just a little snippet at a time, it is difficult to get that overview. I think it would be useful one day to have that overview and to actually look at how much certain practices have changed in the House, say, from 10 years ago or 20 years ago. I think we would all be quite shocked, actually, no matter what matter party we belong to.

In any event, we are debating this particular bill today.

I want to begin by saying, as others have remarked today, that the bill is long overdue. Canada has, really, an embarrassing record on corruption overseas, in terms of lack of legislation.

As many have pointed out today, Transparency International, a very credible organization that monitors corruption and bribery in terms of what happens in different places in the world, in its 2011 report, ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with regard to international bribery. It pointed out that we had little or no enforcement, based upon the very minimal legislation we had.

There is no question that this is absolutely long overdue. It begs this question. Why does it take so long?

We look at the legislative agenda and look at all of the little boutique bills that come through on the Criminal Code, when they do not need to happen. Why has it taken so many years for something as major as this, which would deal with crime and corruption? Why has it taken so many years for anything to come forward? Where is the balance here? Where are the priorities? We are sort of pulling apart the Criminal Code clause by clause and adding in more mandatory minimum sentences. We have had so many Conservative backbencher bills. Yet, with something as major as this, in terms of Canada's role in the international community, we are hauled on the carpet by an organization that monitors international bribery and corruption, which has said, “You guys have got a pretty bad record; in fact you're basically the worst of all of the highly industrialized countries”. This is an embarrassment.

Further, there have only been three convictions in the last number of years, in fact, since 1999, and two of those were in the last two years. This is a pretty appalling record.

Suffice it to say I am glad, at least, that we are debating this bill today. At least the bill would take some steps.

Just to focus for a moment on what this bill would do, for those who are watching the debate, there would be four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. One of them would be to increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from five to fourteen years. That is a fairly significant change.

The second change in the bill would eliminate an exception that had been in operation for what is called facilitation payments, where foreign officials are paid to expedite the execution of their responsibilities. I will come back to this, because there are some concerns about it. While we agree that this exception should be eliminated, we have to examine the impact of that, for example, on NGOs that are operating in extremely difficult circumstances in political environments that are very risky and where they have to provide payments to get essential emergency humanitarian goods through—for example, going through police checkpoints. One does have to find that balance.

Third, the bill would create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to bribe or conceal bribery of a foreign official. This is a very important change in terms of ensuring that transparency goes right the way down the line.

Finally, the bill would establish a nationality jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act. What this means is that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences that are committed overseas. Again, that is a very important measure.

I want to say very clearly that New Democrats have long supported clear rules that require transparency and accountability by both Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. In fact, the NDP has had a number of bills in this regard. One of my colleagues, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, had Bill C-323, which would allow lawsuits in Canadian courts by non-Canadians for violations of international obligations. The member for Ottawa Centre had Bill C-486, which would require public due diligence by companies using minerals in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

These are very important issues for Canadians, because we know that the extraction industry in Canada and the way it operates overseas is a major business concern. The way those companies do business is something of great concern to Canadians in terms of ethical practices. We have seen many movements here in Canada, including NGOs, the labour movement and individual citizens who have made sure they became active on this issue.

I want to point out something about a bill we voted on not that long ago, Bill C-300, which was a Liberal member's bill. When I raised transparency in the debate, the Liberal member for Charlottetown who replied to me pointed to Bill C-300 as another attempt to bring about better transparency and corporate accountability in foreign practices.

What is really interesting, and I am sure many members here will remember, is that it was defeated in part because 13 Liberal members voted against it. I remember the bill when it came up. There was intense advocacy for the bill from major NGOs across the country. They did an incredible job. The bill itself was very reasonable. It laid out basic standards for practice. However, there was, of course, a lobby against the bill. It was really quite shocking that 13 Liberal members voting against the bill resulted in the bill being defeated by a mere 6 votes.

We actually did come close to having that bill go through the House of Commons. I know that many of the organizations and individuals that had supported the bill were quite shocked that it had been defeated and were hugely disappointed about the amount of energy, time and effort that had gone into it.

It was a wonderful example of how Canadians look beyond their own border, look globally to see what Canada is doing. They had paid great attention to the need for Canadian corporations, companies and businesses to be accountable, to engage in ethical practices and to ensure there is not bribery and exploitative practices taking place in terms of labour rights or the environment.

These are things Canadians are actually very concerned about. I always feel very inspired when I see these organizations and people, whether they are putting out petitions or sending us emails. People really care about what we do in other parts of the world. We care about whether or not people are being exploited.

Just a little while ago, my colleague from Ottawa Centre talked about the situation in Bangladesh. I saw the story too, last night on CBC, and it is gut-wrenching and it makes us want to jump up and ask what we have to do to make sure these kinds of terrible, appalling conditions no longer exist.

We are talking about thousands of people who lose their lives because they work in terrible conditions where safety is disregarded, where people are not paid decent wages. If we layer on top of that all of the bribery and corruption that goes on, this is a multi-billion dollar business in terms of corruption and unethical practices.

I do not think the bill before us would address all of that, so the other bills we have before the House, particularly from the NDP members that I mentioned, are critical to ensuring there is a comprehensive approach to the way we are dealing with this situation.

We do have some concerns about the bill, which I would like to put on the record. assuming that the bill does get referred to committee. Because the bill would amend the definition of a business to now include not-for-profit organizations, we believe that this should be studied very closely at committee, and obviously witnesses need to be brought in to look at the impact of this particular change on charitable and aid organizations. As I mentioned earlier, the reality is that those organizations do sometimes, out of sheer necessity, have to make payments to expedite or achieve delivery of very essential items and humanitarian goods. This is something that is out there in the real world.

The bill is really tackling corruption and bribery, from the point of view that money is being made, money is being put in people's pockets and officials at embassies and so on are being bribed. That is what we are trying to get at, so I think we have to be very careful that we do not, by consequence, lay down a rule that could actually have a negative impact on organizations that are legitimately and in good faith trying to do very important work in some of these global areas where there is political, military and civil conflict going on. To make sure that kind of aid is delivered in a proper way is very important. We are hoping this issue would be examined more closely at committee.

The second item we think needs further examination is that the committee should also study the consequences of establishing an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, because once 14 years is reached, it is actually the threshold at which conditional or absolute discharges of conditional sentences become impossible. It is obviously a much more serious penalty, and the committee, when it receives the bill, should examine that very carefully to make sure there is a balance in terms of our judicial system and conditional sentencing or the question of absolute discharges.

It is easy to make a blanket case, and again we have seen that so often with the Conservative government. It tends to make harsh, blanket rules that do not allow for discretion within our court system. Our court system has a history and a tradition of allowing judicial discretion, so judges can actually examine individual cases and the circumstances that warrant a harsher or a more lenient approach. That is what balance in the judicial system is about.

Therefore, one has to be very careful that in bringing forward new legislation we do not tip that balance and create a system that becomes so rigid that it becomes counterproductive. As the penalty is so harsh, people could end up pleading not guilty more frequently, or prosecutors may even be more reluctant to bring forward charges. There could be unintended consequences of having penalties that are so harsh. This is an issue that we think should be looked at in the bill. We support, in principle, the penalty being increased and the sentencing threshold being increased. However, we have to look more carefully at whether 14 years is the right cut-off.

Finally, in terms of changes that we think need to be looked at, there is the question of the rule on the facilitation payments that I spoke about earlier. We need to figure out how it impacts NGOs and non-profits. That issue would not be part of royal assent but rather would be under the consideration of cabinet, which is in the current text. That one aspect of the bill, if this bill were passed as is, would not go ahead with the rest of the bill. Therefore, that has to be examined. We need to know the reason that is being put aside. The discussion on the facilitation payments as they would impact NGOs might help inform that debate, but it is something we need to look at.

I also want to talk briefly about more current situations. We heard today from the member for Ottawa Centre, who updated the House on a communiqué he had received from the G8 that is currently taking place. It was quite interesting. He pointed out that in this communiqué the issues of corruption and transparency were quite prominent. His point was that we need to know that our own government is committed, not only to the words in these communiqués, but that it is actually going to follow up. I thought the member used a very good example when he spoke about international treaties that we sign for which there is no follow-up.

The example he used was Bill S-10 that was rushed through this House a few days ago, on cluster munitions. I was one of the people who spoke to that bill. The member pointed out very clearly in the debate on that bill that the NDP believes Bill S-10 would actually undermine the very international treaty that it is meant to be following up. The point is that when these communiqués come out and these commitments are made in places like the G8, we need to know they are actually going to be followed up. We need to know that those commitments mean something.

Again, we get back to this particular bill, Bill S-14, that has taken so long to come forward. Why has it taken so long? Why is there not a greater priority and emphasis on these kinds of bills? In the G8 communiqué, among the issues that were flagged, was the need to have greater transparency and a public registry.

The member for Ottawa Centre told us that one of the proposals is the need for a regime whereby companies would not be able to set up a shell company. Even if there is good legislation, if enforcement is to be taken on issues of bribery and corruption, it is very difficult. There could be a lack of political will, as I have just spoken about, or it could be that they are trying to figure out who the operatives are in a particular company. There is the idea of a public registry and the need for better transparency, as well as the notion that we should not allow elaborate legal complexities for the setting up of shell companies that in effect allow individuals and operatives to hide behind other entities. That makes it much more difficult to figure out who is doing what and where enforcement should be applied.

That is a very significant issue, and it is not covered in the bill, so it does show us that the bill does not go far enough. I think that was the member's point this morning.

Nevertheless, we are supporting the bill at second reading. We will pay great attention to it in committee. We will seek to improve the bill so that it lives up to its spirit and intent, which is ensuring that we tackle bribery and corruption by public officials in other countries.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to exercise the minister to the extent that he seems to be so exercised. I simply made a comment. I did not mention one senator.

I said it is ironic, irony being a literary device, that we are dealing with a bill, Bill S-10, which deals with corruption and which comes from the other place. That is all I said.

Maybe the member is feeling defensive about payments from the Prime Minister's chief of staff to a senator. I do not know what he calls it. I do not call it enlightened behaviour. I would call it enlightened behaviour when we have a party that calls upon us to bring ourselves up to an ethical standard and have integrity in how we do our business.

When a person makes a mistake, he or she owns up to it. We have not seen that from the Conservative government.

In case he was not listening carefully, I did not name any particular senator. I talked about the irony. I would encourage him not to get too exercised about it. Maybe I will use a metaphor later, but he should not take it personally.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak, yet again, to Bill S-14. We on this side of the House have mentioned before that we support the bill. We believe that we could go further, as I mentioned in my comments and questions to the parliamentary secretary.

As I have done with all of these bills, I have to start off with our concern and my concern about the way the bill came to us. We have a bill on foreign corruption that has come to us from the other place. When a bill has an “S” in front of the bill number, it is an indication that it comes from the Senate. It has been said numerous times since we have been debating the bill that the government should have seen fit to start this bill here in the House. After all, the elected representatives, I think, are the best people to actually look at corruption, notwithstanding what is happening in the other place, speaking of corruption. Every day there is another story of corruption in the other place. I have to start by underlining that point.

The government seems to not even blush anymore when bills are sent over from the other place. At least on this bill, it should show some contrition that there is a bill, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, that would crack down on foreign corruption, yet it comes from the other place, an unelected body, that is mired in corruption right now.

It is rather stark to see this happening with the current government, which claimed that it was going to be different. Now it has become just like the other guys. The government brings in closure and uses the Senate, abuses the Senate, to do its toil. That is what the government has done with Bill S-14. No one even blushes anymore. It is just business as usual with the current government. It uses the Senate to do its bidding, even on something as important as foreign corruption.

The bill itself, as has been mentioned, would simply bring us up to the minimum standard of our allies. The government was embarrassed by our critique, on this side of the House, in terms of how the standards of our companies abroad have fallen in terms of enforcement on corruption and corporate social responsibility. We just saw a news report last night about what happened in Bangladesh. We should not forget that. The NDP called for hearings at the foreign affairs committee. We would like to see more done on that.

It is about Canada getting back into the game and actually leading. The bill does not go far enough.

I will just give a quick résumé. The bill would make four major changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

It would increase the maximum sentence, as was mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.

It would eliminate the exception for so-called facilitation payments, which is basically paying someone to grease the wheels to get a contract moving. Interestingly, we saw allegations of that happening in Montreal. Maybe we should be applying those rules more forcefully here. Maybe the government should be taking a look at who its candidates are when it recruits them and who it hires as staff when ministers hire ex-candidates. Hopefully, it will do a better job on that.

The bill would also create a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records. We just received a communiqué from the G8, which came out half an hour ago. In fact, if the government is going to live up to what it has signed on to, it would actually have to amend the bill further, because there is an incentive in this communiqué for the government to do more in this area and to be more transparent in terms of books and records.

The fourth part of the bill would establish national jurisdiction such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences under the act that are committed overseas. They cannot go overseas and do something they could not do here.

I think it is important to put it into context. As I mentioned, we just received the communiqué from the G8 conference. It touches on many of the aspects we are dealing with in Bill S-14. It is a 10-point communiqué. I am not going to read all 10 points, because they are not all directly related to the bill we are debating.

The first point the G8 leaders signed on to is that “[t]ax authorities across the world should automatically share information to fight the scourge of tax evasion”.

When we talk about the corruption of foreign officials, a lot has to do with the way money moves around. I am delighted to see that this is in the communiqué. We will see if the government takes this seriously.

Second is that countries “should change rules that let companies shift their profits across borders to avoid taxes, and multinationals should report to tax authorities what they pay where”. This has been mentioned already by the parliamentary secretary. It would mean more transparency of companies' operations.

Third is that “[c]ompanies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily”. If we do not have this in place, the S-14 provisions would be very difficult to enforce, in some cases, because if we do not know who owns companies, we do not know who is influencing the companies. We do not have a full profile. In other words, if we were trying to establish that there was a payment to a company official, and we did not know who the company belonged to, it would be very difficult to prosecute.

We have heard from the G8 meetings that Canada was fighting this. We should be fighting back and getting the government to comply. It turns on the issue of beneficial ownership. That means that a company is hidden behind a shell. What the G8 is looking at, and what Mr. Cameron is pushing for and what number three in the communiqué is about, is that there be full disclosure. Companies can no longer have this parlour trick of hiding behind beneficial ownership. That means having a public registry of all companies showing exactly who owns them. We do not have that right now. Prime Minister Cameron said, “Personally, I would hope the whole world will move towards public registers of beneficial ownership”.

Aid agencies say that private registries would be second best. In other words, there would be a registry, but it would not be public; it would be in government. We are hearing that only the U.K. and the U.S. have committed to having public registries.

I hope the government will take this seriously, because if we are to deal with foreign corruption, we have to have transparency. If we are serious about this communiqué we have signed on to, we have to have a public registry of all companies, who owns them and where they sit. Otherwise, we will not be able to live up to the spirit of transparency.

Fourth is that “[d]eveloping countries should have the information and capacity to collect the taxes owed them—and other countries have a duty to help them”. This is critical when it comes to the issue of being able to influence foreign officials. What we often hear, on the ground, in emerging or developing economies is that officials are able to take advantage of their power to approve projects, et cetera, mainly because there is not a requisite tax system with the proper enforcement and oversight, so they can get away with it. This is what leads to corruption, because there is no proper oversight.

This is extremely important, because obviously, it would help benefit their citizens. It is also a way to deal with the potential for corruption. If there is full disclosure and sunlight, if you will, on who owes taxes and whether they have been paid, it is a disincentive for officials to use their power for corruption.

The fifth point is very important for us in the NDP: “Extractive companies should report payments to all governments—and governments should publish income from such companies”.

We have heard a positive message from the government that it will get behind this. We need to see legislation. From what we have seen and heard from the government, there is no requirement that these reports are to be made public. It is important that we fully embrace transparency and not go just halfway.

By the way, mining companies have said that they would sign on to this. I am hoping that all the extractives will get behind it.

Number six is very near and dear to my heart. It states: “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. As members know, this is the whole issue of conflict minerals. In places like the eastern part of the Congo, where there are human rights abuses and massive corruption, it is a conflict zone. Minerals that go into all of our devices, such as BlackBerrys and cell phones, come from a conflict zone. In essence, we are all, unknowingly for many people, carrying a piece of a conflict in our electronics, because we do not have the proper sourcing of minerals.

What the communiqué says is that “Minerals should be sourced legitimately, not plundered from conflict zones”. This is a challenge to the government. Are the Conservatives going to get on board? Bill C-486, which I put forward, would allow us to comply with what we have seen in the United States with Dodd-Frank. Legislation is in place to ensure that all minerals are from legitimate sources and are not aiding and abetting conflict. The Europeans are moving in this direction. The OECD, which we talked about in terms of this bill, has provided guidelines on ensuring that there is proper and appropriate oversight when it comes to sourcing minerals.

The sixth point is very important, and it is something I have worked on with a lot of people, including people in this place, to get Canada on board and at least get us up to the standard that has been established by others.

Number seven is very important: “Land transactions should be transparent, respecting the property rights of local communities”. When it comes to the corruption of foreign officials, one of the biggest trends we have seen in the last while is the acquisition of land by foreign countries, particularly in developing countries. There is a massive land grab going on right now, particularly in Africa. I will name some countries. China is big into this right now. It is banking land, taking over land. We need to ensure that local communities are respected.

Let us be honest. We are not perfect here in Canada. When we talk about social licence for companies to do their work in extractives, oil and gas, we need to respect local communities. This is an extremely important and urgent issue in developing countries, because we are seeing massive land grabs. It is about food security and about certain countries banking land and keeping an eye on their needs for minerals, oil, gas, et cetera, and in some cases, even food.

Number eight states that governments should roll back some measures on trade that they think would be helpful for trade.

Number nine is about ensuring that things are streamlined, particularly at borders between countries. We certainly know that issue with respect to our friends south of the border. Mr. Speaker, representing your constituency, you do not have to be told that this is extremely important.

Number 10, the last part of the communiqué from the G8, states: “Governments should publish information on laws, budgets, spending, national statistics, elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. That is actually for us. I am going to read that one again. It is cogent, because if we are going to talk about fighting corruption abroad, we need to be transparent at home. The G8 has signed on to this.

“Governments should publish information on laws, budgets”—think about the parliamentary budget officer here—“spending, national statistics”—this is very interesting, considering what we have done to Stats Canada—“elections and government contracts in a way that is easy to read and re-use, so that citizens can hold them to account”. Number 10 needs urgently to be brought into force here.

I have listed these G8 points that just came out in the communiqué, because as I said in my comments when I questioned the parliamentary secretary, this bill does not go far enough. If we are going to seriously deal with corruption abroad, and we are going to actually be leaders, then it is not good enough just to get up to a minimum standard. That is not the Canadian way. I feel that we are living in the past with the current government.

The way the current government seems to operate, and the parliamentary secretary said it well himself, is that the Conservatives brought forward Bill S-14 because the OECD had cited us as being laggards. It was not until that happened that the government decided to bring forward this legislation. That is not the Canadian way. We should be leading. We should be looking at our practices to see where we are in terms of other jurisdictions.

Everyone knew that we were laggards. Transparency International has been saying so for quite a while.

We can look at this 10-point communiqué of the G8. Are we going to at least meet the standard of our allies? I would like us to see us go further.

For instance, I am concerned when it comes to the issue that Prime Minister Cameron cited about companies being transparent about who owns them so that we can deal with tax evasion. We are hearing that Canada is not going to do that. We are not going to publicly publish who owns a company.

As I mentioned, we need to deal with corruption seriously. We need to have full daylight, and if the government is only going to go halfway on this initiative, we will again fall back. We will be back in this House debating a bill to bring the standard up yet again. The government should embrace what both the U.K. and the U.S. are planning to do and have public registries listing who owns which companies. It should stop the shell game, particularly this practice of “beneficial ownership”.

The point is to make sure that we are transparent when it comes to the extractive industry. The government talked about signing on to the initiative for ensuring that all payments made between foreign governments and Canadian companies are transparent, but to whom? Is the information going to be kept within government, or would it be public? Will we have to ATI to obtain it, or would government do what other governments have done and make it transparent?

As I mentioned before, we must ensure that we get up to the standard of other countries on the issue of conflict minerals so that we no longer are looking the other way when it comes to the sourcing of the supply chain for many of the things that we rely on in our technologies.

If we are serious about it, we would embrace these initiatives of being fully transparent on who owns what companies, being fully transparent and pushing transparency when sourcing minerals in the supply chain for our electronics, and being fully transparent about payments between companies and governments abroad. Then we would be at the same standard as our allies. If we do not meet that standard, then we will be left with what we are doing here, which is trying to catch up.

I will be a bit partisan: what we have seen from the Conservative government is that we have become laggards. We sign on to international treaties, but then we do not follow up with implementation that lives up to the treaty.

For example, we have been called out by Norway and the Red Cross on the fact that the cluster munitions treaty that we signed on to will be undermined by Bill S-10, the proposed implementation legislation, which we have debated. It would undermine this international treaty.

We must think about this for a second. The International Committee of the Red Cross never comes out and criticizes government, but they just did yesterday. It said that Bill S-10, the implementation bill for the cluster munitions treaty that we have signed on to, would actually undermine the treaty. It is shocking.

I am very concerned that when we sign on to this communiqué for the G8 that we actually follow up, live up to the spirit of what we have signed on to and not undermine it.

Another example when it comes to international treaties is the arms trade treaty we agreed to. Then we find the gun lobby taking it over from the government. It is astonishing.

Instead of embracing the future, these guys are living in the past. They are affecting our reputation. Instead of getting on board with progress, they are holding us back just because of their ideology.

Bill S-14 will be supported by the NDP simply because it is the least the Conservative government can do. However, what we want to see is full transparency. When we see the follow-up to the communiqué on the G8, we will be holding the current government to account to at least come up to the standard of our allies.

Personally, and I am sure I speak on behalf of my colleagues, we would like to see Canada lead and not be a laggard. It is something I think most Canadians want to see as well.

Cluster Munitions

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 175 people from southern Ontario who are concerned about the convention on cluster munitions.

The petitioners believe that Bill S-10 contains exceptions which run counter to the object and purpose of that treaty. They ask Parliament to amend Bill S-10 to remove those exceptions, to include an explicit prohibition on investment in cluster munition production and to add mention of the positive obligations Canada assumes by signing the convention.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this time last week, I said that I hoped to have a substantial list of accomplishments to report to the House. Indeed, I do.

In just the last five days, thanks to a lot of members of Parliament who have been here sitting late at night, working until past midnight, we have accomplished a lot. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, the important job-creating bill, which was the cornerstone of our government's spring agenda, passed at third reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, passed at third reading. Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, passed at third reading. Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, was reported back from committee and was passed at report stage and passed at third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was reported back from committee. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was reported back from committee this morning with amendments from all three parties. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, has been passed at committee, and I understand that the House should get a report soon. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, passed at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, passed at second reading. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, passed at second reading. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, has been debated at second reading. Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, has been debated at second reading. Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, has been debated at second reading. Finally, Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was also debated at second reading.

On the private members' business front, one bill passed at third reading and another at second reading. Of course, that reflects the unprecedented success of private members advancing their ideas and proposals through Parliament under this government, something that is a record under this Parliament. This includes 21 bills put forward by members of the Conservative caucus that have been passed by the House. Twelve of those have already received royal assent or are awaiting the next ceremony. Never before have we seen so many members of Parliament successfully advance so many causes of great importance to them. Never in Canadian history have individual MPs had so much input into changing Canada's laws through their own private members' bills in any session of Parliament as has happened under this government.

Hard-working members of Parliament are reporting the results of their spring labours in our committee rooms. Since last week, we have got substantive reports from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

We are now into the home stretch of the spring sitting. Since I would like to give priority to any bills which come back from committee, I expect that the business for the coming days may need to be juggled as we endeavour to do that.

I will continue to make constructive proposals to my colleagues for the orderly management of House business. For example, last night, I was able to bring forward a reasonable proposal for today's business, a proposal that had the backing of four of the five political parties that elected MPs. Unfortunately, one party objected, despite the very generous provision made for it with respect to the number of speakers it specifically told us it wanted to have. Nonetheless, I would like to thank those who did work constructively toward it.

I would point out that the night before, I made a similar offer, again, based on our efforts to accommodate the needs of all the parties.

Today we will complete second reading of Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act. Then we will start second reading of Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Tomorrow morning we will start report stage of Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act. Following question period, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the first nations elections act.

On Monday, before question period, we will start report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act. After question period Monday, we will return to Bill C-49, followed by Bill C-65, the respect for communities act.

On Tuesday, we will also continue any unfinished business from Friday and Monday. We could also start report stage, and ideally, third reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act that day.

Wednesday, after tidying up what is left over from Tuesday, we will take up any additional bills that might be reported from committee. I understand that we could get reports from the hard-working finance and environment committees on Bill S-17 and Bill S-15 respectively.

Thereafter, the House could finish the four outstanding second-reading debates on the order paper: Bill C-57; Bill C-61; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; and Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

I am looking forward to several more productive days as we get things done for Canadians here in Ottawa.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Cluster Munitions

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one is signed by hundreds of people from my own riding in Winnipeg Centre. They largely draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that cluster munitions are morally and ethically reprehensible. They criticize Bill S-10, saying that it contains language that results in loopholes and exceptions, which run counter to the object and purpose of the treaty and undermine its spirit and intent.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to amend Bill S-10 to close the loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in any use of cluster munitions for any reasons, anytime, anywhere, for anyone.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but begin by drawing attention to the fact that, yet again, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose in the House a few minutes ago and sought unanimous consent to rush through another government bill. Of course, he failed to get unanimous consent, so he served notice that the government intends to bring in time allocation. I would point out that it will be the 46th time that it has happened with the Conservative government, which is a record among all governments.

I want to bring this up because it is 11 o'clock at night, we are sitting until midnight and we are debating legislation that has been sitting around for years. This particular bill that we are debating tonight, Bill S-10, is one such example. It is really quite extraordinary that we have a government that is so contemptuous of democratic practice.

We are here as parliamentarians to uphold democratic practice for our constituents and for all Canadians. That is what we do in this place, we debate legislation. I consider it an affront to all members of Parliament, but particularly the opposition, because our job is to analyze legislation, scrutinize it and hold the government to account. That is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. To see the government time and time again without purpose and rational reason, but for political reasons, rush through legislation and cut off legitimate debate in the House is deeply disturbing.

I just wanted to begin my remarks with that, because it has become so routine that we now come back to the House during the day, interrupting committees and other business, to vote on these time allocations. Even we, ourselves, forget just how sickening it is in terms of what this process is about and how bad it has become. The government now does not even blink an eye. It has just become its modus operandi, its MO, in terms of how it does its business. That is a pretty sad day for Canadian democracy.

The bill before us tonight that is being debated, Bill S-10, deals with the ratification of the treaty on cluster munitions. It is surely a very important bill, as the convention is very important too. Many of my colleagues tonight have given wonderful descriptions and oversight of the importance of this issue and the fact that these cluster munitions are now stockpiled to the amount of something like four billion. That is incredible when we think of the harm that is being done to civilian populations. We do know that 98% of all recorded cluster munitions casualties have been civilians. They are innocent people.

We know that these cluster munitions, or bomblets as they are sometimes called because they are very small, can do tremendous harm, if not killing people, then maiming them for life. We have seen this in many countries. I think there are about 37 countries that have been engaged in actions where cluster munitions have been in effect.

Clearly, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. Canada has historically had a very good record. The Ottawa agreement on banning land mines began in Ottawa. The global momentum came from this country. We have a very honourable record on some of these issues. Canadians have been very proud over the decades to be advocates for nuclear disarmament and for disarmament generally. Certainly, when we look at these inhuman cluster munitions and the damage that they do, we can all recognize that a convention that would ban their operation is critically important to real human security.

We live in such a militarized world. We live in a world where the resolution of conflict often becomes a military resolution. We have seen a global situation where diplomacy often takes a back seat. One thing that really worries us is that we now see a Conservative government in this country that seems to have a mindset that sees military operation as a higher priority. We have seen diplomatic actions and the role that Canada has played historically as something that becomes more minimal in its approach. That is very disturbing.

That is why, when Canada signed this convention in 2008, it was seen as a progressive thing, as a good step, a good step forward.

We know that 111 countries have now signed the convention and 68 have ratified the convention. Once the convention has been signed, it is still up to individual countries to then bring in their own legislation to ratify, which is what we are debating tonight.

Clearly, we would all like to see those remaining countries sign the convention. However, what we are debating here tonight is what Canada's position is, what Canada has done, and what the government is proposing.

The first thing I would do is echo the comments of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who asked the obvious question as to why this legislation has been sitting around for so incredibly long. It was signed in 2008. It did not get tabled in the House of Commons until December 2012. Then it went to the Senate and hung around there some more, yet here we are, jamming it through at the last minute, at 11 o'clock at night with, really, no regular debate.

I think, number one, it becomes very suspect as to what the government's agenda is and the fact that it is not willing to allow this legislation to stand the rigorous test that all legislation must live up to. That is our role, but it is also the government's role.

Therefore, number one, I want to put in the debate that we are very concerned about the timing of this bill and how the government deliberately seemed to allow this bill to lapse for so long and now is now rushing it through when, presumably, not many people are paying attention so late at night. We know that many Canadians are concerned about this issue.

One of my colleagues tonight spoke eloquently about the thousands of young people who have signed petitions in support of the convention and expressed their concern about these cluster munitions. We know that people are very concerned about this issue. They want to see our government do the best it can do—not the minimal, not the lowest common denominator, but the best effort that we can do.

When we examine this legislation and look at what other countries are doing and look at what experts are saying, we come to the conclusion that this bill, Bill S-10, is flawed. It would not live up to the convention. In fact, it would undermine the convention.

We hear what others who have been very involved in this issue have said. For example, the former DFAIT negotiator, Mr. Earl Turcotte, stated, “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.” That is a very a strong statement. That is coming from the former negotiator for Canada on the convention. Surely the government would listen to this kind of expert advice, but apparently it is being ignored.

Then the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, stated, “It is 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.” Again, these are very strong and quite astounding words to hear from an ally, a former prime minister of Australia, about this Canadian legislation.

Many of my colleagues tonight have painstakingly gone through the legislation and shown point by point, but particularly in section 11, how this legislation would not meet the standard that needs to be met in order to live up to the substance and the principle of the convention before us.

I would quote one other expert source, and that is Mines Action Canada. It did a comparison between Australian and the U.K. and then looked at current best practices of various aspects of the bill, including New Zealand and Belgium.

It too comes to some analysis that I think should set off the alarm bells for us in terms of what Bill S-10 is all about. It states, “Canada's legislation allows Canadians to be more proactive in their involvement with the use of cluster munitions, which we feel runs counter to the prohibition on assistance. Section 11 seems to go further than any other legislation worldwide in permitting Canadians themselves to use cluster munitions in very specific cases. This is an unacceptable deviation from the spirit and letter of the convention and from Canada's commitment to lessening the humanitarian impact of conflict.”

It further states, “Section 11, paragraph 2, regarding Canadian transport of cluster munitions, has no equivalent in the draft Australian legislation or in the U.K. legislation, again showing how far Canada's legislation has strayed from the spirit of the convention on cluster munitions”.

These are not ambiguous words that the representatives of Mines Action Canada are using. It is not fuzzy. They are stating quite clearly that from their expert analysis the bill is leaving Canada in a very ambiguous position. It would leave our Canadian Forces in a very ambiguous and uncertain position. I do not think that is acceptable.

I am glad that my colleague asked a question just now as to whether the government is willing to look at amendments when this bill goes to committee. It presumably will, because it is under time allocation. The member responded that if we could all agree, there could be an amendment.

However, again we get back to this process issue of a travesty when legislation goes before a committee. The government is hell-bent on getting something through and is not willing to consider amendments that are eminently reasonable and rational and actually seek to improve the legislation. There are hundreds of examples of this happening, although with the bill before us we feel particularly bad because it is based on an international convention, and there is a great history of how these conventions can help with global security.

Surely it is incumbent upon Canadians, through our government, to ensure the legislation we have is the very best it can be, not the worst. It is very disconcerting that according to a number of these experts, Canada is doing the least it can do. Worse than that, it would produce conflict between the convention and the bill, this so-called “ratification”. It is not really a ratification at all, but something that is contrary to the bill.

We will debate Bill S-10 as long as we possibly can. The bill will go to committee, and we will do everything we can at the committee. With due diligence and in good faith, we will try to improve it, and it will come back under time allocation, I have no doubt.

We have to alert Canadians as to the appalling agenda that the Conservative government has, not only in terms of what it does but also in terms of how it does it. It flies in the face of democratic practice.

I hope we will get another opportunity to debate this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise tonight and speak on this very important topic of the prohibiting cluster munitions act. This bill, which has received a significant amount of debate this evening, represents just one aspect of our government's commitment to addressing the humanitarian consequences and unacceptable harm to civilians caused by remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international treaty that builds on and complements other international agreements that address weapons that cause excessive injury or have indiscriminate effects.

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 impact of that use. We have continued this long-standing commitment by taking part in international efforts to rid the world of cluster munitions, a weapon that Canada has never produced or used in its military operations.

Bill S-10 would allow us to continue these long-standing efforts by enabling Canada's ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. A ratification would send a strong signal of our unwavering commitment to reducing the impact of armed conflict on innocent civilians, whether in places like Syria where civilians suffer daily from the horrendous civil war, or in places like Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, which are massively contaminated with cluster munitions many years after the wars have ended. There are 24 countries and three other territories believed to be contaminated by cluster munitions remnants.

Cluster munitions are a very serious humanitarian concern. They can pose threats to civilians not only during attacks but afterwards. They have killed and maimed thousands of people, sometimes decades after conflicts have ended and often as they are going about their daily activities. Tragically, many of those injured are children who can mistake certain types of brightly coloured bomblets as toys. Unexploded munitions also have a negative effect on farmers and ranchers who cannot access land for growing crops and raising cattle. This stalls the development potential of whole communities trying to rebuild their lives after conflict.

Motivated by the harm caused to civilians by cluster munitions, the international community launched the Oslo process in February 2007 to negotiate a treaty that would ban cluster munitions. Negotiations took place over several meetings throughout 2007-08 and concluded with the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Dublin in May 2008 and its opening for signatures in December 2008.

Canada was an active participant throughout the Oslo process negotiations and was among the first countries to sign the convention. Today, 83 countries have ratified it and an additional 29 countries that have signed the convention. Most of our NATO allies have signed or ratified the convention.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions establishes a high humanitarian standard while preserving the capacity of countries that ratify the convention to continue to engage effectively in military co-operation with those countries outside the convention. The convention prohibits the use, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions. Specifically, it bans cluster munitions, sets deadlines for the destruction of stockpiles and clearance of contaminated areas, and establishes a framework for international co-operation and assistance so that victims receive the assistance they need in order to be able to live full and active lives.

Our government is already active in promoting the universalization and implementation of the convention with international partners and will continue doing so. Since 2006, Canada has contributed more than $200 million through 250 projects to this global effort, making us one of the world's top contributors.

For example, in February 2013, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs announced $2.93 million to assist land mine survivors in Columbia, including children and youth, with recovery and reintegration into society.

We have also provided $3.9 million to address explosive remnants of war in Laos, the most heavily cluster munitions-affected country in the world. In Lebanon, we have provided $3.6 million to assist in risk education and the clearance of cluster munitions.

As others have mentioned before me, Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions in its operations. Over the past three decades, Canada had two types of cluster munitions in its inventory. The Canadian Armed Forces have initiated the process of destroying all of the cluster munitions and the last remaining inventory of cluster munitions has been removed from operational stocks and marked for destruction.

It is important to note that Bill S-10 represents only the legislative requirements under the convention. We continue to do much apart from the legislation and, to date, we have participated as an observer at the three meetings of states parties. We have already been voluntarily submitting annual transparency reports on implementation of the cluster munitions convention. Again, all of these activities are being implemented outside of the bill and before Canada's ratification of the convention. These steps show this government's strong commitment to ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

It was recognized during the Oslo process not all states would be in a position to immediately sign and join the convention. It was also recognized that in a real world, multilateral military operations that are crucial to international security require co-operation among states, including co-operation among states that renounce cluster munitions and those that do not.

Given these realities, Canada and others insisted that the new convention contain provisions permitting the continued ability to engage effectively in military operations with countries that have not ratified the convention. This was not just the Canadian position. It was shared by other countries. Without article 21, it was clear that a number of countries would not have been able to join the convention. From the start of the negotiations, the issue of military interoperability was a clear reality, as well as the need to ensure that countries ratifying the treaty would continue to collaborate militarily with countries that did not.

Canada and other states made strong statements to that effect as early as the Vienna conference in December 2007, as well as the Wellington conference in February 2008 and during the Dublin diplomatic conference in May 2008. The interoperability provisions of the convention found in article 21 allow the treaty to strike a delicate balance between a commitment to addressing the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions while still permitting states parties to preserve their own legitimate national security and defence interests.

This is an important balance for Canada, one that was prioritized early and often during the negotiations of the convention by Canada and several other allies, and one that remains shared by a number of key allies party to the convention. It allows us to carry out our will to rid the world of cluster munitions while ensuring that the Canadian Forces remain able to participate in multinational operations with Canada's key allies that are not party to the convention. Such operations are crucial to our national security interests and allow us to keep pulling our weight internationally. For Canada, authorizing our military personnel to carry out operations with the armed forces of a state not party to the convention allows us, among other things, to maintain our unique, co-operative relationship with the United States, which offers unparalleled benefits in terms of security, defence and industry.

The ratification legislation before the House, Bill S-10, would allow Canada to fully implement the convention's obligation in Canada's law. Bill S-10 would implement the parts of the convention that actually require legislation in Canada. The convention itself applies a number of obligations to Canada as a state party and one of these requires each state party to impose on persons within its jurisdiction the same prohibitions that apply to the states parties themselves. To do this, the proposed act sets out a series of prohibitions and offences and the technical definitions required to support their investigation and prosecution.

More specifically, the bill prohibits the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, foreign movement, and import and export of cluster munitions. In addition, stockpiling of cluster munitions on Canadian soil is not allowed by the bill, as it prohibits all forms of possession. The bill also prohibits any person from aiding and abetting anyone in the commission of prohibited activities, which includes direct and intentional investment in the production of cluster munitions.

The bill also sets out exceptions that reflect the convention's partial exclusions on some of its prohibitions from legitimate and permitted purposes, such as military co-operation between state parties and states that are not party, defensive research and training, and transfers for the purpose of destruction of stockpiles.

Since much of the debate on Bill S-10 has been centred on the interoperability exemptions provided for in clause 11 of the bill, let me address this specific issue. As already mentioned, the convention itself calls for the use of criminal law. As such, it is necessary to create exceptions to prohibitions established in this legislation in order to ensure that our men and women in uniform and the associated civilians who participate in military co-operation and operations permitted by the convention are not held criminally responsible for those acts when they are serving Canada.

These exceptions also apply to personnel serving in exchange, therefore preserving Canada's unique military co-operation with the United States, which provides unparalleled security, defence and industrial benefits as stated.

The exceptions of clause 11 of the bill do not permit or authorize any specific activity. They simply exclude these activities from the new criminal offences created by the law. If these exceptions are not included in the act, it would lead to criminal liability for a wide range of frequent military co-operation activities with our closest allies that are not party to the convention and that do not plan on ratifying it in the near future.

It is important to point out that these exceptions are permitted by the convention itself and apply only to the specific omissions created in the bill. Furthermore, these agreed exceptions apply only to the provisions of the convention itself and not to any other international humanitarian law instruments or customary legal principles. They do not detract in any way from other applicable legal obligations of members of the armed forces. In effect, these provisions permit working with other states only so long as this does not violate any other applicable obligations, including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks.

Let me emphasize that the Canadian Armed Forces members remain prohibited from themselves using cluster munitions in Canadian Armed Forces operations, and from expressly requesting their use when the choice of munitions to be used is under their exclusive control.

In addition, the Canadian Armed Forces, as a matter of policy, will prohibit their members from themselves using cluster munitions and from training and instructing in the use of cluster munitions when on exchange with other states' armed forces. The transportation of cluster munitions aboard carriers belonging to or under the control of Canadian Armed Forces will also not be permitted by policy.

Even though the Convention on Cluster Munitions is still young, there has already been progress. Countries that ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions are obligated to clear areas contaminated by cluster munitions as soon as possible, and no later than 10 years after entry into force of the convention for that state party.

In 2011, more than 52,000 unexploded submunitions were destroyed during clearance operations across ten states and two other areas. Formerly contaminated land is now being reclaimed and used. People in those cleared areas can work, walk safely to their home, to school and to work. Farmers can till their fields. Children can play outside like children all around the world should.

The needs of victims are starting to be addressed. Collectively, countries need to maintain efforts to prevent further casualties.

Canada is committed to the eradication of cluster munitions and must continue to do its part in this effort. Canada's ratification of the Convention on cluster munitions will be a key step in that direction.

It is time that Canada joins others in ratifying this important convention. This is why we have tabled this legislation that will enable Canada to become a state party. We are particularly proud of Canada's important role in striking the convention's essential balance between humanitarian and legitimate security concerns and ultimately paving the way for ratification of the convention by a larger number of countries than would have been the case otherwise.

I think we can all agree on the importance of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the need for the House to pass Bill S-10 quickly.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act. I am pleased to hear from some who have already spoken about why the convention on cluster munitions is needed so urgently and why it is important that the House pass Bill S-10 quickly.

The need is obvious. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated many times, and as was repeated just hours ago by the Minister of National Defence, our government is proud of the active role we played in the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I might add that this included Mr. Turcotte, who was at all three meetings of the cluster munitions convention negotiations and who negotiated specifically article 21, which the opposition does not want to talk about, to provide for the interoperability of Canadian Armed Forces with its allies.

We were committed to this cause at that time, and we remain just as committed today. However, there remains one outstanding issue, that of interoperability. As much as we would like to live in an ideal world, we do not. As much as we would like to live in a world where every country has signed on to the convention, we do not.

In the real world, the Canadian Armed Forces co-operates closely with our American allies and undertakes many joint missions. We actively second military personnel to each other's armed forces. These secondments strengthen the co-operation between our armed forces and improve the security and safety of all Canadians. These secondments are an opportunity for Canadians to gain significant experience abroad and to return that much stronger. Such co-operation between the Canadian and American militaries is both necessary and desirable. That is the reality of the world we live in.

In order for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces to be able to work closely and effectively with their American counterparts, a clause in the Convention on Cluster Munitions was needed to allow Canada and the other countries to sign the treaty while allowing them at the same time to continue co-operating with the armed forces of those countries that have not signed the convention. It is for this reason that Canada, joined by other states, negotiated to include article 21 in the convention to permit military co-operation and operations with states that have not signed the treaty.

In our view, article 21 strikes a balance in addressing the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions while allowing states parties to protect their own legitimate national security and defence interests.

The reality is that article 21 is part of the convention, a convention that to date 112 countries have signed and 83 countries have ratified.

From the beginning of the negotiations, Canada supported the need to ensure that countries could continue to collaborate militarily with those that have not signed the treaty. The Canadian delegation and others made this point strongly in every negotiating session since 2007, and we are satisfied that article 21 adequately meets this need. Authorizing members of the Canadian Armed Forces to carry out operations with the armed forces of countries that have not signed the convention will allow Canada to maintain our special co-operative relationship with the United States. Clause 11 of the bill would allow Canada to support the convention and at the same time meet our security needs in co-operation with our American allies.

Canada, as we know, has more interoperations with the American military than any other country in the world. Canada has a clear mandate in negotiations, and we have always been open and transparent in exactly what we wanted to accomplish. Others are free to have their point of view, but the treaty and this legislation represents the view of the Government of Canada.

The Minister of National Defence touched on this briefly a little earlier, but I think it is important to again emphasize that under Bill S-10, the Canadian Armed Forces members would still be prohibited from using cluster munitions during Canadian Armed Forces operations.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces would also be prohibited from using cluster munitions and from training in the use of cluster munitions when they were on an exchange with another country's armed forces. The Canadian Armed Forces would also not be permitted to transport cluster munitions on Canadian vehicles belonging to the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I said at the outset, much of the debate on Bill S-10, and indeed on the convention itself, has concerned the issue of interoperability. Since under the convention this would be a criminal offence, it is necessary that Bill S-10 ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces who participate in operations with the U.S. armed forces not be held criminally responsible for anything that may violate the terms of the treaty.

Imagine if a Canadian commander were under intense fire from the enemy and called in close air support from our American ally, and that American ally chose to drop a cluster munition. Would our commander then be criminally responsible? I think under the legislation, the opposition is suggesting that he or she would be. Should the commander in that situation not call in that close air support and allow Canadian soldiers to die? That is what we are talking about here.

What they are proposing would put Canadian military personnel in a very difficult and potentially very dangerous situation. This is the reality of operating in the real world. We have to be sure to protect our men and women in uniform in these circumstances.

When the treaty was negotiated, it was accepted that not all countries would be able to sign the convention right away. The treaty's negotiators also recognized that multilateral operations would require states that have not yet signed onto the convention to work with those that already have. Here again, it was recognized that in the real world, things do not always work out the way we would like. Therefore, Canada and others insisted that ways be found to allow those countries that have signed on to the convention to work with those that have not.

That is article 21, subsection 3, of the convention. That is in the convention that all countries ratified. Our allies, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have put provisions into their legislation that would allow article 21 to operate so that their militaries could interoperate with other countries that use cluster munitions. That was negotiated by all of our negotiators, including Mr. Turcotte.

While some of the specific details in Bill S-10 may be different from the terms of the convention, that is simply because of the need to turn some multilateral treaty language into Canadian legal terms. This has to be done to meet our charter and other Canadian legislative standards for clarity in Canadian courts.

As members of the House will know, when senators considered this bill, they proposed a number of amendments that were either already covered in the bill or would have undermined its position.

Let me now review some of the senators' suggestions and examine why the government was not able to accept them.

As an example, some senators suggested making it an offence for a person to knowingly invest in a company that makes cluster munitions. That is already covered by Bill S-10, since investing in a commercial organization that produces cluster munitions would fall under the prohibition against aiding and abetting. Under section 10, as it now stands, aiding and abetting or counselling from Canada would be a criminal offence, even if the activity took place in a country where it was legal.

Concerning the senators' suggested amendment to create reporting requirements, the convention already requires reports annually from countries. Even though Canada has not yet ratified the treaty, the government is already providing the required reports voluntarily. Similarly, senators proposed an amendment concerning the stockpiling of cluster munitions. Here too the bill already addresses the issue of stockpiling cluster munitions, so the proposed amendment was not necessary. Although Bill S-10 does not refer to stockpiling as such, because it is not a term used in Canadian criminal law, the idea in the bill is referred to as “possession”.

Some of the senators' amendments would have added the word “transfer” to the definition in the prohibition provisions. The meaning of the word “transfer” in the convention requires prohibiting the physical movement of cluster munitions from one state to another when it also involves a change of ownership and control. Using this definition would have raised some concerns, because the word “transfer” already appears in many Canadian laws. In Bill S-10, therefore, we used the word “move” instead of the word “transfer”. Moving prohibited cluster munitions from one country to another would be an offence if the intent was to change the control and ownership of the munitions, which would be consistent with criminal law in Canada, therefore making it easier to prosecute in a Canadian court.

Another amendment proposed by senators would have the Canadian Armed Forces tell a country that has not signed the treaty, and with which we are engaged in military co-operation, about our obligations under the convention. However, the House should remember that Bill S-10 is about criminal law, so it would not be a good idea to include such an obligation in this bill. Besides, this obligation falls on the Government of Canada and not on individual members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Can we imagine if it was the obligation of every member of the Canadian military in battlefield situations to point out to their counterparts, whether they be from the American military or the military of another allied nation, such as the ones we participated with in Afghanistan, that perhaps they should think about not using cluster munitions and destroy their stockpiles? In the heat of battle, the Canadian military personnel need to focus on the job at hand.

In another suggestion, senators proposed an amendment that would add the offence of extraterritoriality to the bill. This is not a requirement under the convention, and aside from that extraterritoriality is covered under Canadian law.

As many others have already pointed out, the Convention on Cluster Munitions would prohibit the use, production and transfer of cluster munitions. Even before we introduced this legislation, our government took important steps to fulfill our obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions. We have begun to destroy all the cluster munitions that we have, and we are already submitting annual reports as required by the convention, even though we have not yet ratified it.

Bill S-10 would implement the purpose of the convention by prohibiting the use, development, possession and import and export of cluster munitions. As well, it would ban the stockpiling or possession of cluster munitions in Canada, as we said earlier. We can already apply many parts of the treaty, but for other parts to come into force the House needs to pass Bill S-10 quickly.

The convention applies a number of obligations on the Government of Canada. However, we also need to apply these same obligations on individuals as well. To do that, Bill S-10 sets out a series of offences and defines them in order to allow their prosecution in the future. The bill also sets out when exceptions would apply, such as when cluster munitions are being used for research and training or where they are being transferred to be destroyed. Bill S-10 would also prevent Canadians from helping someone else from carrying out any activities prohibited by the treaty.

As we have heard from other speakers during this debate, cluster munitions are a dangerous type of weapon, which disproportionately affects civilians long after the fighting has ended. Children are particularly sad victims of these weapons, since children can often mistake them for brightly coloured toys. They pick them up to play with them, with tragic results. If that is not sad enough, cluster munitions make it impossible to use the land to raise cattle or grow crops, so farmers and ranchers cannot earn a living for a long time after the fighting ends.

Our government is committed to protecting civilians in war-torn parts of the world from the indiscriminate suffering that cluster munitions cause. We have done this through our support for the ban on land mines, and we will continue to do this by our support for a ban on cluster munitions under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This legislation is an important step toward meeting this commitment.

Canada's ratification of the convention will give a strong signal of Canada's continued commitment to reducing the suffering caused by war. Innocent civilians, including children, need our help and they need it now.

I am proud to support Bill S-10, which would enable us to ratify the convention and begin once and for all to end the scourge of cluster munitions. I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really disingenuous to have a government member ask another member to in basically 30 seconds compare a piece of legislation to two other countries. It is absurd. We are here today debating this legislation the government has put forward as compared to the treaty. That is what is important.

Anything we look at tells us that Bill S-10 is undermining the very treaty that was signed by Canada. I am very glad that my hon. colleague raised the fact that there are thousands of young Canadians who have signed this petition. It is really distressing that they had the best expectations that the government would bring forward a bill that would actually meet the spirit, principle, intent and substance of that treaty, yet this legislation has failed.

I am very glad that the member made the point she did tonight. I think it shows how far removed the government has become from not only the feelings of Canadians but even from meeting the spirit and the substance of a treaty Canada has signed.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member a question that I asked her colleague who spoke previously. Her colleague, unfortunately, was unable to answer the question, I suspect because she had not taken the time to look at the U.K. or the Australian legislation which she said compared better to Canada, in terms of the interoperability provisions of section 11.

Could this member take us through the U.K. legislation, the Australian legislation and section 11 of Bill S-10, and tell us how the Canadian legislation differs from the U.K. and Australian legislation in terms of allowing interoperability with states that do use cluster munitions?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are examining a bill that comes to us from the Senate, Bill S-10, an Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

For some weeks now, we have been here, gathered together late in the evening, to debate bills that the Conservative government wants to push through Parliament. Although we in the official opposition are proud to rise and represent the interests of our constituents, discuss matters of substance, propose better solutions and put forward concrete amendments, I would like to underline the fact that the procedure whereby we are here to talk about Bill S-10 this evening is unacceptable.

The Conservative government is forcing Parliament’s hand to have its bills passed as quickly as possible by using time allocation motions—the 45th one today—and many last-minute votes.

What happened to the time traditionally allocated for debate, in-depth, non-partisan studies by parliamentary committees and government consultations with national and international experts? All of these steps are essential to the democratic process of drafting legislation before bringing it for a vote in the House of Commons. I am raising these procedural points on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP. We will be trying to have Bill S-10 amended in committee.

We are opposed to Bill S-10 as it stands because, although its title appears to say that its purpose is to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in reality, it does not implement it, it destroys it. Bill S-10 serves to set Canada against the 110 other countries that have signed the convention and the 68 that have already ratified it. The bill will be used as a place for the Conservative government to hide. It is an attempt to make an exception to the convention. The NDP cannot stand behind an approach that is, in the words of former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, timid, inadequate and regressive.

So that all my colleagues in this House are just as informed about cluster munitions as my constituents are, I would like to define some terms. The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international disarmament and humanitarian treaty that bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and provides for their clearance and destruction.

The 111 states that signed the Wellington declaration took part in a conference in Dublin, Ireland, thereby supporting the draft convention. These states included Canada. The convention was adopted on May 30, 2008 and Canada signed the convention on December 3, 2008. In signing the convention in 2008, Canada made a number of commitments.

Canada committed primarily not to use cluster munitions; not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone cluster munitions; and not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention.

It also committed to destroy the cluster munitions in its arsenal no later than eight years after the convention enters into force, and to clear and destroy, or ensure the clearance and destruction of, cluster munition remnants located in contaminated areas under its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, Canada must provide assistance to the victims of cluster munitions in areas under its jurisdiction, provide assistance to other states parties to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the convention, and take all legislative measures necessary to implement the convention.

Article 2 of the convention reads as follows:

“Cluster munition” means a conventional munitions that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions.

Cluster munitions were used on battlefields in World War I and more recent conflicts, including Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. These weapons disperse hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. Nobody can escape them.

It is sad to say, but 98% of all injuries resulting from cluster munitions are inflicted upon civilians. According to the Cluster Munition Coalition, over 25% of victims of cluster munitions are children, who are especially drawn to unexploded sub-munitions. The bombs look like toys, and up to 30% of them do not explode upon contact with the ground. These bombs patiently lie in wait for their victims.

The Conservative government wants to vote for a bill that will annul Canada's commitment to the victims of cluster munitions.

This is not just about past victims, but current and future victims.

Bill S-10 will, in fact, invalidate the convention. It circumvents the interoperability provision, allowing Canada to aid, abet, counsel and conspire to use cluster munitions.

Why is the government, which negotiated and signed the 2008 convention, doing an about-face? Does the government not agree that these weapons must be completely banned and that Canada needs to walk the talk?

Speaking of taking action, I would like to congratulate the many Canadians who have signed petitions calling on the government to act responsibly and ban cluster munitions. I commend my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, who took receipt of these petitions and tabled them in the House.

Just like the NDP, the people of our great country are calling for amendments to Bill S-10. They are asking that no Canadian be liable for their involvement in the use, production, purchase or sale of cluster munitions or financial investment in these activities. They are calling on the Government of Canada to make a positive and ongoing commitment to the convention it signed in 2008, as an addendum to Bill S-10. They are urging the Government of Canada to recognize the massive impact that cluster munitions have on civilian populations in wartime and for decades thereafter.

I would like to quote Mines Action Canada:

…no Canadian should ever be implicated in the use of cluster bombs for any purpose, in any location, or on any mission.

According to Paul Hannon, the director of Mines Action Canada, Canada should have the best implementation legislation in the world. We should be the frontrunners. That is absolutely not the case given the bill before us this evening.

I encourage everyone to sign the petition from Handicap International Canada against cluster bombs. To date, the petition has 708,318 signatories. I would also like to commend my colleague from Ottawa Centre on the excellent work that he has done in this area.

Globally, unexploded sub-munitions and land mines kill some 4,000 civilians each year. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan as a result of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. These weapons are dangerous because they are virtually uncontrollable, even long after an armed conflict has ended. These weapons are unacceptable.

Bill S–10 taints Canada's record in terms of leadership on issues of international importance. If it is passed in its current form, this legislation will be the weakest legislation in the world when compared to that of the 110 other countries that have signed the convention. Yet thanks to the amendments suggested by the NDP, Canada could redeem itself and win back its role as a protector and defender of human rights, including victims' rights.

Why is the government bent on undermining all these efforts? There was a brighter day. In 1997, thanks to Canada's leadership, the treaty prohibiting land mines, better known as the Ottawa treaty, became the most ratified disarmament treaty in history. In memory of this historic moment, I hope that all my colleagues, across all parties, will support the NDP's efforts and the amendments that it puts forward.

In closing, I would like to quote an article that Craig and Marc Kielburger wrote last year, on Remembrance Day. Craig and Marc Kielburger are two exceptional young Canadians who founded the not-for-profit organization called Free the Children. They continue to encourage over 100,000 young people every year to get involved in their community and promote justice, peace and social solidarity.

This week we pay homage to Canadians who served and died to uphold global peace and freedom. What better way to honour their sacrifices than to advance peace by eliminating a weapon that kills and maims hundreds of children every year.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about clause 11 of Bill S-10, and I wonder if she could take us through it. I would like her to be very specific on the related provisions in the Australian legislation and the United Kingdom legislation, and tell us, in her opinion, in a very detailed way, how those provisions differ in terms of interoperability with the provisions of clause 11 in Bill S-10. I would like specific answers to those questions.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

In 1997, Canada distinguished itself on the world stage by hosting the meetings on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

Those important meetings led to the signing of the Ottawa treaty, which made it possible to reduce the number of innocent civilian victims during and after military conflicts. The treaty concerned anti-personnel mines, but there is another threat to which Canada could respond with genuine leadership: cluster munitions.

It is a brilliant invention: deploy a bomb that deploys hundreds of bomblets. Why not just deploy a bigger, more accurate bomb? That is true military genius. The bomblets, which do not explode immediately, cover an area the size of four football fields and are transformed into anti-personnel mines. Some of our soldiers are injured by those mines.

On initial impact, 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians. As the bomblets are very colourful and remain in place for years after the bombing, children are the most common victims following a military conflict.

If Canada has committed to opposing anti-personnel mines, why has it done nothing tangible to combat this inhuman invention? My position on this issue is clear. I am opposed to Bill S-10 and I am going to show how it does nothing to assist in controlling cluster munitions. When I see these bomblets, I think of our children and of my grandchildren, who could be seriously injured or killed by them.

Even more so since the aim of this bill appears to be to facilitate their use.

The 2008 Oslo treaty became the next logical step after the Ottawa treaty since its purpose was to prohibit cluster munitions. Several of the greatest weapons-producing countries, such as China, the United States and Russia, decided not to take part in the Oslo process. Unfortunately, it appears that Canada bowed to American lobbyists to ensure the plan would not be successful.

Unlike the United States, Canada took part in the Oslo process. Rather than refuse to participate, it managed to negotiate the inclusion of an article permitting ongoing military interoperability with states not party to the convention in the final text of the convention. This loophole in article 21 of the convention makes it possible for a signatory country to tolerate the status quo. It goes without saying that the scope of the Oslo process was dramatically reduced.

The idea of an act to implement the convention is an excellent one, but what we have here more closely resembles an insurance policy for the military-industrial complex. Considering that the position the government has adopted is largely modelled on that of the United States, it is fair to ask what has happened to Canada's sovereignty.

What will the Conservatives say? That this is good for the economy? What economy? What will they say to the 50,000 victims of cluster munitions in Laos, who are poor people and mostly civilians?

I also wonder what arguments the Conservatives will offer our soldiers returning from Afghanistan injured as a result of the use of this icon of human technical knowledge.

I thought the Conservatives were tough on crime, but I am disappointed they have chosen to be soft on humanitarian international law, which cluster munitions violate outright.

That law includes the principle of distinction, which requires weapons to be directed at combatants with a certain degree of accuracy. I should point out that 98% of victims in this instance are civilians.

The principle of humanity is also violated by cluster munitions because they cause enormous, long-lasting damage to the natural environment.

In addition, between 5% and 40% of sub-munitions do not explode on initial deployment and are guaranteed to cause losses following a conflict.

Lastly, there are the principles of prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Following combat, a site infested with cluster munitions causes even more harm to innocent victims, very many of them children who may not even have been born at the time of the conflict.

However, what is the point of reminding people that these weapons are so inhumane, the Conservatives introduced a bill to prohibit them? To put it simply, perhaps the purpose of this bill is not really to prohibit them.

Instead of implementing the convention, Bill S-10 instead affirms that the Conservatives have chosen their camp, the camp of needless slaughter.

Tough on crime? Pro-life? Really?

This is laughable. These are nothing but slogans that fail to conceal the fact that the Conservatives are soft when it really counts. Instead I see a narrow-minded group of people bowing to U.S. demands so they do not have to face their own consciences.

I am not alone in thinking so. The former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, said it was a pity the current Canadian government did not provide any real leadership to the world on cluster munitions. He added that its approach was timid, inadequate and regressive.

The Conservatives have long since chosen to act as lackeys to the great powers, and their fawning will eventually deflate their image as tough guys. This applies to climate change and the tar sands, the Canadian economy, which they are shamelessly undermining, and now Canada’s international reputation.

But they will not drag us down when they fall. Canada is big enough and strong enough to show them the door quickly.

People will say I am using a broad brush, but in my opinion, this bill says a great deal about how this government operates with respect to legislation. They do things in a hurry, they are lazy, and they only want to please their friends. Bill S-10 is no small matter, but we have very little time in which to discuss it.

Earl Turcotte, former coordinator of the mine action program at DFAIT, led the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned when the government tried to impose a weak enabling act, saying that the proposed law was the worst of all the laws passed by countries that had so far ratified or signed the Convention. The worst! Not the second-worst, the best of the not bad, or the fourteenth, but the worst.

With that, I believe I have nothing more to add, except that the disproportionate zeal this government puts into the funding or promotion of its party might better be put into a healthy approach to legislation. Laws require time and study, and their objectives should be to help people. It is not enough to spend a few hours discussing such an important bill. Above all, it should not be said that this is to protect children.

These are all targets that Bill S-10 fails to hit, because this is a law that is as disastrous as a cluster munition.

I hope the members opposite understand that there will be collateral damage.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, when one talks about ideology, I just heard the longest 15-minute rant on ideology that we have heard in the House tonight. The member does not understand that word. She needs to go and look it up.

It is my pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the prohibiting cluster munitions act, which fully implements Canada's legislative commitments under the convention on cluster munitions.

Bill S-10, which was adopted by the other place on December 4, 2012, moves us closer to becoming a state party to the convention on cluster munitions. Our ratification of this important humanitarian treaty will be a strong signal of Canada's unwavering commitment to reducing the impact of armed conflict on innocent civilians.

As others have rightly pointed out, cluster munitions are a grave humanitarian concern to the entire international community. Cluster munitions are a form of airdropped or ground-launched explosive weapon that can hold and release or eject dozens, or even hundreds, of smaller submunitions, or bomblets, to quickly cover a large target area.

Cluster munitions can pose threats to civilians not only during attacks but afterwards, particularly when they fail to detonate as intended. Unexploded bomblets can kill and maim civilians decades after conflicts have ended, and tragically, many cluster munition casualties around the world are children, who can mistake certain types of brightly coloured bomblets as toys. Access to land and essential infrastructure contaminated by unexploded bomblets is blocked to important uses, such as growing crops, raising cattle and fetching water. This stalls the development potential of whole communities trying to rebuild their lives after conflict.

Canada's commitment to the protection of civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war, including those caused by cluster munitions, is well known and well established. We are proud to be part of the international effort to rid the world of cluster munitions, a weapon that Canada has never produced or used in its military operations.

Motivated by the harm caused to civilians by cluster munitions, the international community launched an initiative in February 2007, known as the Oslo process, to negotiate a treaty that would ban cluster munitions. Negotiations took place over several meetings throughout 2007 and 2008 and concluded with the adoption of the convention on cluster munitions in Dublin in May 2008 and its opening for signatures in December of 2008.

Canada participated actively throughout the negotiations and we were among the first countries to sign on. Today, there are 83 states parties to the convention.

It is important to provide some context on how negotiations unfolded. Despite what the opposition would try to have us believe, it was recognized early during the Oslo process that not all states would be in a position to immediately sign on and join the convention. Early on, it was recognized that multilateral military operations, which are crucial to international security, required co-operation between states, including co-operation between states party to a possible convention and states that were not. This was not just Canada's position, but that of many of our allies. We had a clear mandate in negotiations. We have always been open and transparent in exactly what we want to accomplish.

From the beginning of the Oslo process, countries, including Canada, began to speak about military interoperability and the need to ensure that states parties could continue to collaborate militarily with states not party to the treaty. Canada, and the other states, made strong statements to that effect as early as at the Vienna conference in December 2007, as well as at the Wellington conference in February 2008 and during the Dublin conference in May 2008.

It is our view, and the view of many other states that had concerns with regard to interoperability, that article 21 of the convention meets the requirements in this regard. For Canada, authorizing our military personnel to carry out operations with the armed forces of a state not party to the convention allows us, among other things, to maintain our unique, co-operative relationship with the United States, which offers unparalleled benefits in terms of security, defence and industry. Article 21 allows Canada to comply with legitimate security requirements, while actively supporting the convention, fulfilling its legal obligations and working toward the universalization of the convention. This universalization goal is one to which Canada remains firmly committed.

In essence, the convention on cluster munitions prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer of cluster munitions. It also prohibits assistance and encouragement of anyone to commit a prohibited act.

Bill S-10 would prohibit the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, foreign movement and import and export of cluster munitions. In addition, stockpiling of cluster munitions on Canadian soil would not be allowed by this bill, as it would prohibit all forms of possession. Bill S-10 would also prohibit any person from aiding and abetting anyone in the commission of a prohibited activity, which would include direct and intentional investment in the production of cluster munitions.

Needless to say, Canada is fully meeting its obligations both in letter and in spirit.

It is important to note that Bill S-10 would implement the parts of the convention which actually require legislation in Canada. The convention itself applies a number of obligations to Canada as a state party. One of these requires each state party to impose on persons within its jurisdiction the same prohibitions which apply to the states parties themselves.

To do this, the proposed act sets out a series of prohibitions and offences, as well as the technical definitions needed to support their investigation and prosecutions. The act also sets out exceptions which reflect the convention's partial exclusions from some of its prohibitions for legitimate and permitted purposes, such as military co-operation between states parties and states that are not party, defensive research and training and transfers for the purpose of the destruction of stockpiles.

As I have already mentioned, clause 11 outlines the exceptions that provide our military personnel with the necessary legal protection to operate with the armed forces of states that are not party to the convention. These exceptions are crucial to allowing Canada to continue to participate in military co-operation and multinational operations with states that are not party to the convention and to keep pulling our weight internationally.

Our government will not apologize for protecting our men and women in uniform and ensuring that they do not face criminal repercussions for doing what we ask of them on a daily basis.

Despite this, it is important to emphasize that Canadian Armed Forces members remain prohibited from using cluster munitions in Canadian Armed Forces operations and from expressly requesting their use when the choice of munitions to be used is under their exclusive control.

In addition, the Canadian Armed Forces, as a matter of policy, will prohibit their members from using cluster munitions and from training and instructing in the use of cluster munitions when on exchange with another state's armed forces. The transportation of cluster munitions aboard carriers belonging to or under the control of the Canadian Armed Forces will also not be permitted by policy.

In response to some questions raised by the other place, I would now like to briefly explain why some of the specific terms in Bill S-10 may differ from the convention. This is simply the result of a required translation of multilateral treaty language into Canada legal terminology. This is necessary in order to meet domestic charter and other legislative standards for clarity and certainty in the eyes of the Canadian courts. For this reason, it was inadvisable to adopt a number of the amendments proposed by senators during deliberations on Bill S-10.

First, a certain number of those proposed amendments would have added the word “transfer” to the definition and prohibition provisions. The meaning of “transfer” as it is used in the convention requires prohibiting the physical movement of cluster munitions from one state to another when it also involves a change of ownership and control.

Using such a definition raised some domestic interpretive concerns, because the word “transfer” already occurs in many Canadian statutes with a different meaning.

The word “move” is therefore used instead. Moving prohibited cluster munitions from one foreign state to another is an offence if the intention is to change ownership and control, which is consistent with criminal law and easier to prosecute. Movement in and out of Canada itself is covered by the related offences of importing and exporting.

Another proposed amendment called for making it an offence for a person to knowingly invest in a company that produced cluster munitions. This is already covered by the bill, since direct and intentional investment in a commercial organization that produces cluster munitions is addressed by its prohibition on aiding and abetting. Those terms are clear in Canadian criminal law, and they cover all forms of investment that entail a sufficient proximity to the actual making of the munitions and the necessary criminal intent. Under the current wording in the bill, aiding and abetting or counselling from Canada will be a criminal offence, even if the activity aided or abetted takes place in a country where it is legal.

Similarly, the bill already deals thoroughly with stockpiling of cluster munitions, and therefore the proposed amendments regarding stockpiling are not necessary. Bill S-10 does not refer to “stockpiling” as such, because it is not a term used in Canadian criminal law. That notion is instead included in the bill under the term “possession”. Cluster munitions may pass through Canada within the scope of military co-operation, but they cannot be stored here except for permitted reasons, such as their destruction.

As for the amendment proposal that would require Canada to inform the government of a non-state party with which Canada is engaged in military co-operation regarding its obligations under the convention, it is important to remember that the current form of the bill is one of criminal law. It would not be advisable to create non-criminal obligations in this kind of text.

The obligation to notify non-party states of Canada's convention obligations and to discourage their use of cluster munitions applies to the Government of Canada when initiating military co-operation and operations with these states. It does not create any ongoing obligations for individual military personnel. The Government of Canada is expected to carry out its positive obligations as a result of the treaty itself, and it intends to fully do so.

Regarding the proposed amendment that would create reporting requirements, the convention itself already requires annual reporting by States Parties. In fact, even though Canada is not yet a state party, I am pleased to tell members that we have already begun carrying out this task voluntarily. To date, we have submitted two article 7 transparency reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which are publicly available. Additional reporting to Parliament could hamper our diplomatic efforts to promote universalization around the world. In this instance, it would not be prudent to encourage countries to follow our lead and then shame them in our own Parliament.

Since much of the debate on Bill S-10 has been centred on the interoperability exemptions provided for in clause 11, it is important that I speak about this specific issue.

As already explained, the convention itself calls for the use of criminal law. As such, it is necessary to create exceptions to the prohibitions established in this legislation in order to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the associated civilians who participate in military co-operation and operations permitted by the convention are not held criminally responsible for those acts when they are serving Canada.

The exceptions in clause 11 of the bill do not permit or authorize any specific activity; they simply exclude these activities from the new criminal offences created by the law. If these exemptions are not included in the act, it could lead to criminal liability for a wide range of frequent military co-operation activities with our closest allies that are not party to the convention and that do not plan on ratifying it in the near future.

It is important to point out that these exceptions are permitted by the convention itself and apply only to the specific prohibitions created in the proposed act. They do not detract in any way from other applicable legal obligations of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those established by existing international humanitarian law.

Even before the introduction of this bill, our government has taken concrete steps to fulfill its commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions in its operations. The Canadian Armed Forces have initiated the process of destroying all of their cluster munitions, and their last remaining inventory of cluster munitions has been removed from operational stocks and marked for destruction.

Canada is already active in promoting the universalization and implementation of the convention with international partners, and will continue doing so. Also, Canada has already been voluntarily submitting its annual transparency reports. All of these activities are being implemented outside of Bill S-10 and before Canada's ratification of the convention.

Canada is committed to the eradication of cluster munitions, and our government is proud to have tabled this legislation to enable us to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We are particularly proud of Canada's important role in striking the convention's essential balance between humanitarian and legitimate security concerns and in ultimately paving the way for ratification of the convention by a larger number of states than would have been the case otherwise.

I urge all parties to support this bill so that we can move it forward as expeditiously as possible.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very important bill.

It is important to remember that it is in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee that elected members of Parliament can help make contributions to the international community and to the world, and where they can make changes that impact millions of people.

I think it is truly unfortunate that this bill was introduced in the Senate, and that the government has remained inactive for four years, has not called a debate on this topic and has not asked Parliament to examine the issue. It waited for the Senate to decide to introduce a bill, which is inappropriate in this case. That will not change as long as there is no real debate in the House, where MPs are elected democratically. Unfortunately, after one hour of debate on May 29, at one in the morning, the government decided to move a time allocation motion. Only one person had debated this bill. That is completely unacceptable.

How can we ratify a convention if we amend it to add loopholes? When we sign a convention, we agree to abide by it. We agree to abide by the spirit and principles of the convention.

How can it claim to ratify a convention if its amendments completely obliterate the spirit of the convention? I want to point out that Canada's chief negotiator resigned because Canada's stance was too weak. That gives an idea of the government's method for negotiating treaties.

For example, Canada is in the process of sabotaging negotiations at the United Nations' Human Rights Council on sexual violence in conflict zones. The government is refusing to adopt a motion or trying to amend a motion regarding sexual violence against women and children in armed conflict. Why would a government oppose such negotiations? Believe it or not, it is because these negotiations and discussions include a section on abortion, reproductive choices and women who are victims of rape.

For purely ideological reasons, whether it be cluster munitions, sexual violence or arms trading, Canada is opposed to these principles. Another example is the arms trade. On several occasions, in the House, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that the convention was a back-door way of reinstating a firearms registry and of limiting the right to own a firearm. That is completely illogical. We are talking about the international arms trade. Ideology is the only reason the Conservative government is completely powerless on the world stage. This is completely unacceptable. Canada's reputation is taking a beating.

The former negotiator walked off the job because the legislation was too flimsy. This is weak legislation put forward by a weak government, which is often the case. The Conservatives do not walk the talk. The Government of Canada is weak. Unfortunately, it is also weak at the UN and on the world stage.

Canada is opposed to a motion against sexual violence and to the arms trade treaty. What other delights await us from a Conservative government that is trying to sneak in changes that would fundamentally alter the spirit of a convention that affects millions of people worldwide?

I have received several messages on my iPod from people around the world, including a young man by the name of Phongsavath, whose photo I have, and who survived a cluster bomb. He lost both his hands. What will the Conservative government say to this young man from Laos? Will the Conservative government say that it is sorry and that it wants to protect its soldiers?

I find it completely outrageous that the government is trying to shift the blame. In 2009, Germany, France, Japan and Mexico signed the treaty. In 2010, Great Britain followed suit, and in 2012, Australia came on board. Yes, these countries are all allies of the United States and they all have joint missions with the United States. Did their soldiers suffer because their countries signed the convention? No, they did not.

The government is trying to shift the blame onto the United States and soldiers. It is everybody else's fault, except the Conservative government’s. In fact, it is as if the Conservatives were in a playground refusing to do something that their friend is not doing. It is completely preposterous.

Canada should be a global leader, not just a follower—the black sheep, as we say. Why are we not able to display the same capacity for leadership as we did during the negotiation process for the treaty to ban landmines? What has happened since then? We were saddled with an ideologically driven majority Conservative government.

It is important to note that on June 3 of next year, the arms trade treaty will be ratified. Unfortunately, it would be foolish to hope for anything better from this government. It is hard to fathom why Canada continues to be a hindrance, refusing to save lives simply because the United States does not want to sign the convention.

One of my hon. colleagues said that we give a lot of money to countries whose populations are victims of cluster munitions. The government would like to allow cluster munitions to be used, and give those countries money. This is completely ridiculous. While we are here, let us do something to solve the problem; let us ratify the convention as it stands and try to persuade the United States.

What credibility would we have with the United States if we obliterated the spirit of the convention and asked them to sign it? What credibility would we have with the United States if we enacted Bill S-10? This is ridiculous. Canada’s credibility would be wiped out.

What can we hope for from a Conservative government that has no respect for the environment or workers’ rights or human rights? Canada is the only country in the world that has withdrawn from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Canada has zero credibility when it comes to negotiations. If we enact Bill S-10 as it stands, that will be undeniable.

I have received messages from a number of countries. I have been told that people in Iraq are still victims of cluster munitions. What credibility would we have on the world stage if we enacted Bill S-10? We would have zero credibility.

In addition, the Conservatives have supported none of our initiatives on respect for human rights or corporate social responsibility. That is a clear demonstration of their contempt, or their negligence.

This is an anemic, flawed, inadequate and mediocre bill that undermines the spirit of a convention that would save lives. The objective of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is to prohibit the use of those munitions. The convention provides that states that ratify it undertake never under any circumstances to use, develop, produce or acquire cluster munitions.

We already know that this is because the United States has not signed the treaty.

Essentially, all the blame is being cast on the United States. This shows how disconnected the government has become. These weapons kill women, children and civilians. In a majority of cases, they do not explode when they are used; they explode years later. This means that in conflict zones, for years afterward, women and children are dying.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I have the honour of sharing my time with the formidable member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who does an outstanding job as deputy foreign affairs critic. We in the NDP will never be grateful enough to her. We are fortunate to have her.

I am happy to speak about Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. There is no doubt that I would prefer to talk about climate change, investment in social housing or respect for the French language, since those subjects would appeal much more to the people in my riding, Québec.

However, we are here to talk once again about security. On the other hand, we will not be discussing the $3.1 billion lost in the fog, which the government is unable to justify. In the struggle against terrorism, how was it able to lose $3.1 billion? It is funny, by the way, because I do not know anyone who loses $3.1 billion for no reason.

With regard to Bill S-10, it is important to remember that cluster munitions are weapons that release hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area, within a very short time. They have a devastating effect on civilian populations that can last for years after conflict ends.

Handicap International reports on its website that since 1965, 16,816 victims of cluster munitions have been registered worldwide. Sixteen thousand eight hundred and sixteen. However, many accidents have not been reported, and the international observatory monitoring cluster munitions—Observatoire mondial des sous-munitions—estimates that the actual number of victims is somewhere between 58,000 and 85,000. What is more fascinating, or deplorable, I should say, is that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are reportedly civilians. Ninety-eight per cent. In other words, these weapons essentially target civilians.

In February 2007, noting that for decades, civilians had suffered whenever cluster munitions were used, Norway launched the Oslo process. Representatives of a number of countries supporting the development of new rules for cluster munitions met at a conference in Oslo. That was where the Convention on Cluster Munitions was born. This international disarmament treaty totally prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of such weapons and provides for their removal and destruction. It is as simple as that.

In 2008, Canada joined 108 countries in signing the treaty designed to prohibit cluster munitions. The agreement came into force in 2010 and has been ratified by 83 countries. Unfortunately, the United States, China and Russia did not take part in the process and continue to stockpile cluster munitions.

Since 2008, extensive discussions between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence have led to the promotion by Canada of a position that is broadly perceived as mirroring that of the United States. Yet the United States possesses one-quarter of worldwide stocks of cluster munitions, which means about 4 billion bombs. Thus, the Canadian government has been delaying ratification of the treaty for more than four years now. It has thus waited all these years under a Conservative majority government. It is just as important to say that, too. It was not the NDP. Oh, no.

Today I rise in this House to oppose Bill S-10, because in reality, it is not an attempt to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but rather an attempt to build in exceptions. That is where the difference lies. We should stress that difference and understand it well, despite the last comments I heard from my colleagues opposite.

During the Senate hearings, numerous witnesses urged the federal government to amend the legislation. According to various academics and former disarmament officials, Bill S-10 would put Canada in violation of its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is important to state that, too.

Earl Turcotte, who led the Canadian delegation that negotiated the Convention on Cluster Munitions, resigned in protest against Canada’s attempt to impose a weak enabling act, because that is exactly what this is. As Mr. Turcotte put it, the legislation proposed by Canada is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date.

In fact, the Canadian law and penalties will be the weakest—one would think it was the law on mines that was being discussed—of all the countries that have signed the convention.

Nevertheless, if the government is short of good reasons for taking a hard line with respect to the use of cluster munitions, it should consider the fact that in 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Forces were killed and 112 others wounded in Afghanistan. Why? Because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other kinds of explosive weapons.

Bill S-10 has some significant omissions that could have fatal consequences for civilians. If the bill is passed in its current form, in fact, it would allow the Canadian Forces to help countries that have not signed the convention to use cluster munitions. That is the weakness of a bill like this. In some circumstances, the Canadian Forces could even use such weapons. Moreover, the bill does not state clearly that investments in this area are prohibited.

According to Senator Roméo Dallaire, Bill S-10 is flawed and puts members of Canada's armed forces face to face with a horrific moral and ethical dilemma. He said that the bill proposed by the government does not respect the spirit of the convention.

In fact, Bill S-10 will invalidate the convention rather than implement it. Once again, the government is moving backwards. Bill S-10 manoeuvres around the treaty's provisions and allows Canada to aid and abet the use of cluster munitions.

Thus, the Government of Canada has completely abandoned its international responsibilities and given in to pressure from the United States. Yet other countries such as Australia and New Zealand that are also allies of the United States stood up and ratified the convention without this kind of exception.

Former Australian Prime Minister Malcom Fraser said:

It is 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.

It reminds me of the government's stand on climate change.

This is not the only arms treaty where the government has revealed itself to be timid, inadequate and regressive. Throughout the negotiations on the international arms treaty, an agreement that would end the global trade in conventional weapons, the Conservative government has maintained its unco-operative position.

In the end, we in the NDP have no other choice but to oppose Bill S-10, because its intent is not to ratify the convention as it should. It is a clear attempt to create a loophole. The Conservatives try to wiggle out of their responsibilities again and again. This is nothing new. We are getting familiar with it, after all these years.

The Conservatives must stop trying to undermine the international agreements to control the arms trade. In addition to weakening peace efforts, an unregulated arms trade leads to increased violence in conflict zones and even more civilian victims. Hundreds of thousands of people are killed every year because of armed conflicts. The Conservatives simply drag their feet or put forward legislation that is misleading—nasty, in fact.

It is unacceptable, and I hope that the government will finally decide to work with the NDP, the conscience of Parliament, at the committee stage, in order to make the necessary amendments to Bill S-10, so that we can move ahead with this convention, without all the detours the Conservatives have planned.

I have one interesting fact here: more than half the victims of cluster munitions are children, who are particularly attracted to unexploded sub-munitions.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight to talk about such an important piece of legislation as Bill S-10. It is truly a piece of legislation that I have been waiting for since pre-2008.

I am a little disturbed to hear the type of dialogue that has been going on in the House. This is not only a good piece of legislation, but is an important piece of legislation for us to ratify and to move forward on. We want to maintain Canada's standing in the world and our history of being a strong country. Whether it is land mines and the Ottawa treaty or cluster munitions, it is important to note that we have been part of this cluster munitions discussion since the beginning of the Oslo process.

As the member of Parliament for Westlock—St. Paul, it sometimes can be seen as a bit of yin and yang when it comes to the issue of supporting the eradication of cluster munitions to many people who are not educated on the issue. I represent two of the largest tactical military bases in our country, 4 Wing Cold Lake, the tactical fighter squadron, and Edmonton Garrison.

However, when we talk to the men and women of the Canadian Forces, they agree with this legislation because they believe that we need to give them the best arms possible that target the enemy and not civilians. As members on both sides of the aisle have said today throughout the rigorous debate that we have had, cluster munitions, unfortunately, target civilians.

The use of cluster munitions has had a profound impact on many countries because it is an intermittent use. We cannot ask the offending country or the offending state or the offending terrorist organization to give us a map of where it used them because they are dispersed throughout an area where, ultimately, young children and farmers end up becoming the victims months, if not years, afterwards.

As I said before, I have to thank my wife for bringing this very important issue to my attention back in 2008 when it was happening in Lebanon, as it has happened in Serbia, as it has happened Vietnam, as it has happened in Nicaragua. When we have had the opportunity to talk to victims of cluster munitions, young children who picked up that little pink ball thinking it was a toy and it blew up and took off an arm or a leg, it is something that we cannot help but feel passionate about. It is something that we cannot help but say, that it is wrong and we need to fight to ensure that it changes.

We go back and think about the time, 2008-2009, when Mr. Turcotte was negotiating on our behalf, as one of the delegation. We were looking, as Canadians, at the ups and downs. We did not know if there would even be enough countries to bother ratifying this, to come to the process at which we are today. It seemed like a bit of a dream to get to the point where we, as a country, were ratifying, where we had over 100 countries on side, and where we could honestly look to putting pressure on those countries, having the social licence to put pressure on those countries that had not ratified.

I look at this legislation. Is it perfect? Is it everything that we could have dreamed about in 2008? No.

However, as we went through the steps I will talk about today, it is a very good piece of legislation. It would have an impact that would make a significant difference, and would reduce the amount of cluster munitions used in the world today. I think that is a very important step. I think that anybody who opposes that has not done their due diligence in looking at this and saying, we cannot have it all, but we can sure start with this piece of legislation, with the Oslo treaty. Being able to move forward from here is a great starting point, not only for Canadians, but in particular for those third world countries that have been affected by the harmful use of cluster munitions.

As members before me have already stated, Canada participated actively in the negotiations on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and we were one of the first countries to sign on to it, in 2008.

As we prepare to return home to our constituencies this summer, it is extremely important that we move this legislation forward as quickly as possible. Bill S-10 is a necessary step that brings us closer to ratification.

Let me emphasize this fact. When I first started lobbying the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we needed to make sure that we ratified this, that Canada continue its international reputation as a leader in the area of land mines and cluster munitions. I was proud of the support that I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but at the end of the day our country has gone through numerous minority governments. We have now finally got into a strong, stable Conservative majority government that has allowed us to take on some of these important issues.

I am happy to sit longer into June so that we can make sure that this not only gets voted on in the House of Commons but gets royal assent. It is important that we maintain our reputation around the world. As Canadians, we are expected to be leaders. Let nobody in this House say otherwise. We have been leaders throughout this entire process. We were one of the first countries at the table. We were one of the first countries to push our NATO allies, as the parliamentary secretary of defence talked about earlier. We have been one of the leaders. It is because of the credibility and the bloodshed of our men and women of the Canadian Forces that we have that credibility with the Americans, with the British, with the Australians, with all of our allies to say we have been there and we want to move the ball forward when it comes to the elimination and ratification of cluster munitions.

Explosive remnants of war, including those caused by cluster munitions, are a grave humanitarian concern. Cluster munitions are deployed from the air or ground with some types able to release dozens or even hundreds of smaller submunitions quickly, covering a large area.

Cluster munitions pose a significant threat to civilians, not only during attacks but particularly afterwards when they fail to detonate as intended. Unexploded bomblets can kill and maim civilians long after conflicts have ended, especially in densely populated areas. Tragically, many cluster munitions casualties are innocent and unknowing children. Unexploded bomblets can also hinder access to land and essential infrastructure, curbing the development potential of entire communities.

As I have been advocating for this legislation for many years, I have had the opportunity to talk to children and farmers who have been in their groves or in their fields and picked up what they thought was a toy only to find that it was a harmful explosive device that, unknown to them, would end up causing them severe damage.

We should be proud of the work that we have done in Canada. We should be proud of the fact that we are consistently in the top ten, if not the top five, when it comes to donating money to countries regarding land mines or cluster munitions. We should be proud of these accomplishments that we have consistently made from 2005, 2006 and onwards.

I find it quite offensive to hear members of the opposition stand up and say that we should not ratify this because it is not perfect and is not exactly what somebody has told us we need to do. Quite frankly, as I listen to them, I realize that most of them have not taken the time that their former leader Alexa McDonough did to understand the importance of ratifying this treaty. I looked at the member from Winnipeg as he talked about this. He sat in the same caucus as Ms. McDonough. Did he not understand from her and her passion the importance that we as a country move forward quickly on this?

Our government's commitment to the protection of civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war is well established, with Canada traditionally in the top ten donors and often in the top five.

Since 2006, we have contributed more than $200 million to over 250 projects with respect to this global effort. For example, our efforts have provided over $1.5 million for the Organization of American States to support mine clearing in Nicaragua, which, with the support of other donors, helped to clear 179,000 landmines planted during the internal conflict in Nicaragua in the 1980s. As a result, in 2010, Nicaragua declared itself mine-free. Its mine-free status made Central America the first post-conflict region of the world to become mine-free.

Building on this momentum, we are proud to be part of the international effort to rid the world of cluster munitions. Recognizing the harm that cluster munitions cause civilians, inspired by the Ottawa convention, the international community began in 2007 to negotiate a treaty that would ban cluster munitions. The resulting Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer of cluster munitions.

In the government's view, the treaty we signed and are now working to ratify strikes the right balance between humanitarian considerations and the continued ability of states parties to protect their national security and defence interests. Indeed, the convention reflects Canada's efforts during negotiations to ensure the right balance between the commitment to eliminate the use of cluster munitions based on humanitarian concerns and the need to protect our legitimate and important security considerations. Canada has never used cluster munitions. We would have agreed to a complete ban on them, but it was clear from the outset that this was simply not a realistic option.

Given the positions of other countries, it would not have been possible for Canada to ratify an immediate and complete ban since other countries we co-operate with militarily were not prepared to do the same. Would we have preferred that all countries sign on to the convention? Would we have preferred that all countries had the principled stance and the ability that Canada has had? Yes, of course, but unfortunately some of our closest allies did not sign on. In that context, the best way to eventually end the use of munitions is to allow countries like Canada to renounce their use and join the treaty while maintaining the ability to co-operate with allies that choose not to join.

Throughout the preparatory phases and during negotiations on the convention known as the Oslo process, a number of states insisted that the new treaty needed to contain provisions permitting the continued ability to engage effectively in military co-operation in operations with countries that did not sign the convention. We negotiated for the eventual elimination of these weapons, but also recognized that not all states would be in a position to immediately join that convention. In a context where multilateral, military co-operation operations are crucial to international security, again this was not exclusively a Canadian position but one shared by other countries, particularly our allies.

Article 21 of the convention is the resulting compromise, which recognizes that allowing states parties to conduct military co-operation in operations with states not party was the best way to ensure as many countries as possible join the convention. Without article 21, fewer states that possess cluster munitions would have agreed to join us and commit to eliminating their stockpiles and use of weapons.

There has been a lot of talk about the people who negotiated this treaty today, but I can say that, sitting in the room with those people in briefings and asking them questions, they felt as I did, that article 21 was essential to ensuring that this treaty was a success. It is easy to have hindsight, to look back and see that something is not perfect, but at that point in time this was the only path that was seen forward, not just for Canada but for the entire process. While appearing before the foreign affairs committee in the other place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

...we have to deal with the reality of the world that we live in. With this, if we had zero tolerance, we would probably get zero results. I think what we have is the capacity that Canada will not use these weapons, will not acquire them and Canada will eliminate its stockpile. That is a good accomplishment; 110 other countries joining us in doing that is more accomplishment. Hopefully, each and every year we can get one or two or more countries, and we can see a time when it will not be necessary for any country to want to possess let alone use these kinds of weapons.

The compromise established by article 21 is found in clause 11 of the prohibiting cluster munitions act. Since the convention calls for the use of penal law, it is necessary to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces and associated civilians who participate in military co-operation operations as permitted by the convention will not be subject to criminal liability for otherwise lawful activities in the service of our country. This protection would be achieved through exemptions from prohibitions. Our government has been clear that we will not jeopardize the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs or what we ask of them in the interests of our country.

Let me be clear. The exclusions in clause 11 do not permit or authorize any activity; they simply exclude these activities from new criminal offences that Bill S-10 would create. If these exclusions were not included in the act, there would be potential criminal liability for a wide range of frequent and lawful military co-operation activities with our closest allies, in particular, the United States. It does not intend to join the convention in the near future, and from my experience I do not expect it to. Obviously, it would not be fair to expose Canadian Armed Forces members to liability for doing their duty in the service of our country when participating in co-operation on operations with states that are not party to this convention.

To bring this to a real-world example of only a few years ago, if Canadian Forces personnel had been in a firefight in Afghanistan, they would have had to call air support from the United States of America, their military allies, who then could use cluster munitions. It is not fair to expose Canadian ground forces to being subject to penal law because their allies use this. It is very important that we not only look at it in context of treaties, but how it would affect men and women on the ground in the Canadian Forces who are risking their lives every day that they go beyond the wire.

It is important to note that the exclusions in clause 11 are carefully limited to activities that are committed by the convention itself and are necessary for effective military co-operation and operations. They only apply to persons who are engaged in activities related to military co-operation operations involving the Government of Canada. They also do not detract in any way from other applicable legal obligations on the part of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those established by existing international humanitarian law. The bill would create specific offences related to cluster munitions, and exceptions to those offences. However, nothing in the bill affects any other existing offence. If something is a crime today, it will still be a crime if and when Bill S-10 is enacted.

Members of the Canadian Forces will be fully subject to the prohibitions on the use of cluster munitions, in the same way as any other Canadian, unless they are engaged in a permitted form of military co-operation with a state that is not party to this convention. When members of the Canadian Forces are engaged in this type of co-operation, they are still prohibited from using cluster munitions if they are in exclusive control over the choice of the type of munitions they want to use. It is only in circumstances where that choice is partly or entirely under the control of the other country that the offences will not apply to Canadian Forces personnel.

I have been involved in this process, from a Canadian perspective and from a parliamentarian perspective, right from the beginning. As someone who has consistently lobbied and worked hard to make sure that not only the Canadian public understands the importance of this process, but the Government of Canada understands, I am very happy to see the steps that have been taken by the government to get this legislation quickly passed through the House of Commons. We will be able to stand up and say that once again Canada has taken the lead. Once again, Canada has asserted its moral authority to ensure we are a country that stands up, not only for countries, but for people who are less fortunate and need our support, our strength and our convictions. We can ensure that we, as a country, continue to be a leader when it comes to land mines and cluster munitions.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we object to article 21 either. It is clause 11 that we find particular fault with. Article 21 states, “Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention”. That is a good deal. “Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention...of its obligations...shall promote the norms it establishes”, et cetera. That is a good deal.

Article 21 of the actual convention I think we are probably in agreement with. It is clause 11 of the legislation put forward in Bill S-10 that we find fault with, the domestic legislation that completely undermines the spirit of article 21 of the actual convention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope we do get a chance to hear from the member for Toronto Centre again tonight.

Continuing the last exchange, it is astonishing to hear members of the Liberal Party, who complained about national caveats during our forces' time in combat in Afghanistan and in Kandahar, who pushed for NATO command of that mission starting in 2003 and then Canadian command of the first NATO combat mission in southern Afghanistan in 2005-06. That same Liberal Party, now in opposition, has become the stern daughter of the voice of God on the whole question of whether interoperability can actually be made a practical reality.

The Liberals did not want to apply these principles of pulling Canadian troops out of U.S. units, of not having Canadian pilots who may be based with U.S. squadrons providing air support to U.S. units that might need it because of the danger of cluster munitions. They did not raise any of those concerns, even while this convention was under negotiation at that time. In the heat of combat, most of them wanted the best for our troops and wanted our troops to do well. They knew very well, very quickly, that they had sent the Canadian Forces into Afghanistan under-equipped, without the right uniforms, the right vehicles, the right mobility, tactical strategic lift, that this country with its expeditionary tradition should always have. They were embarrassed for it and they were called on it, and they will wear their record of a decade of darkness, the lowest ebb of support for the Canadian Forces, for the rest of their history.

However, on this issue of cluster munitions and exceptions, the hypocrisy we have seen tonight is astonishing. The members of that party that wanted us to lead the first NATO combat mission in one of the most difficult theatres imaginable now wants to fetter those same forces with an inability to work comprehensively with their U.S. colleagues. It wants to fetter the forces from being good allies, to be one of the few countries that do not have those caveats and that do not shy away from combat when it is necessary and authorized and the right thing to do. The comments from the member for Toronto Centre probably do more than anything I am about to say to advance our case for this legislation. It is the right legislation to govern our involvement in the Convention on Cluster Munitions at this stage in our history, while the United States is still on a different path.

Let me say a few things about this important legislation from the perspectives of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Let us remind ourselves what those Canadian Forces are still doing at home and abroad that brings them into contact with Canadians on all three coasts and across this great country. They are in contact with allies, with many of the countries the member for Toronto Centre mentioned, many of which sent contingents to Afghanistan but did not have the size, scale or capability to do the heavy lifting that countries like Canada did.

Our troops have responded in the last year to natural disasters, such as floods in Quebec and the Prairies, forest fires in British Columbia, and a hurricane in Atlantic Canada. They support law enforcement agencies when called upon. They patrol our Arctic. They conduct search and rescue missions. We discuss those missions almost every week in this House of Commons. They do it on some of the most inhospitable terrain and climate on earth.

Abroad, our men and women in uniform have been heavily committed to the mission in Afghanistan, first protecting Kabul, the capital, while our allies were off on another mission in Iraq. Then they were in combat in Kandahar, bringing NATO forces into a pitch tempo of operations that they had never seen before in the history of the alliance. Now they are training the Afghan National Security Forces.

The forces have protected civilians in Libya. They are engaged in counter-narcotics missions in the Caribbean basin and the eastern Pacific. They are helping to foster maritime security in the Arabian Sea. Let us recall HMCS Toronto and its seizures of heroin, opium and hashish on historic scales, which the allied navies have never before achieved.

We are also participating in a number of international missions, from Cyprus to Golan to South Sudan. More and more the forces find themselves working in complex, sensitive, legally challenging theatres of operation. There is no rule of law in many of these states and societies when these missions are undertaken. That is why these Canadian Forces, and indeed the new authorities in many of these countries, are looking to international law, including conventions, agreements and other treaties to guide their actions.

One of them is the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which Canada signed in good faith four and a half years ago. The bill before us would allow Canada to ratify that treaty. However, even though the convention has not yet entered into force in Canada, and this is a key point, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have already taken clear steps to abide by its spirit.

First and foremost, it is important to recognize that the forces have never used these weapons in any of their operations. If anything that we say tonight deserves repetition, it is surely that fact. The Canadian Forces, with their record of success in world wars, peacekeeping, Korea and Afghanistan, have never had recourse to cluster munitions. Even three years before Canada signed the convention, the forces had begun to phase cluster munitions out of their operational weapon stocks where they had remained unused. It was not long after that the forces began ridding themselves of these weapons entirely, a process which is nearly complete now that Public Works and Government Services Canada has posted the last contract for the destruction of our remaining stock of cluster munitions.

While this process of stock destruction was under way, the Chief of the Defence Staff underscored the forces' position on these weapons, by prohibiting their use in any of our military operations. The fact that all this took place before Canada even signed the convention shows our commitment, and the commitment of the Canadian Forces, to its aims.

It is because we recognize that the kind of international co-operation that leads to agreements like the convention results in a safer world and, by extension, greater security for Canada.

The Canadian Forces have always been strong supporters of the arms control and disarmament regime. It helps to keep the world an orderly and more peaceful place, where fewer military operations are required.

However, this kind of international co-operation naturally requires more than just signing treaties, and it goes further than co-operation initiatives in the area of arms control.

For a number of decades, Canada has been a strong defender of multilateral security efforts. The Canada First defence strategy highlights the importance of this type of co-operation in the present-day context.

Partnership and co-operation with all of our allies is also a priority for NATO, and with countries beyond NATO.

Clearly, international co-operation in the defence field will remain one of the cornerstones of Canada’s security for a long time to come.

Let me contrast this vision of security with our many partners. There is the United States here in North America, but there are dozens in NATO and dozens outside of NATO that have active security co-operation with Canada. The member for Toronto Centre said this government was responding to some kind of imperial pressure. I look around to Europe, south of the border, Asia, and I fail to see, and I think all of us on this side of the House fail to see, an imperial power in this day and age to which Canada would subordinate itself in any way, shape or form.

It is for that reason that we will continue to remind the House and Canadians that we are speaking about today's reality, not about the anxieties of the 1920s or the 1950s and not about something of historical interest. We are speaking about Canada's security reality today, our partnerships in the world, our co-operation in the world, and our arms control and disarmament obligations in the world.

As I have already mentioned, international co-operation in the field of security involves more than treaties. It encompasses areas such as collaborative research, development, training, information sharing and joint operations.

These endeavours help the Canadian Forces safeguard Canada’s security because, in today’s complex world, countries cannot face down most threats by themselves.

In today’s volatile environment, Canada has a close ally. For decades, the Canadian and American armed forces have worked side by side to safeguard the security of our two countries and foster global stability. This is why the Canada First defence strategy specifies that the Canadian Armed Forces have a duty to strengthen this long-standing co-operation by remaining a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America.

I might as well ask if the member for Toronto Centre knows the history of his own party?

It was the Liberal Party of Canada that brought us into the North American aerospace defence agreement. We are the smaller partner, but it is for the larger objective of defending North America, and we did that of our own free will. This government supports that alliance as much as any Liberal government did. However, it is not a question of ceding sovereignty, but a question of defending peace and one's national interest more effectively with allies. We have always done it.

The strategy also calls on the forces to co-operate with our partners and allies, including the United States, in order to promote international security.

Our long-standing co-operation with our American friends has proven successful over the years. It has allowed us to have access to important information, dialogue with key decision-makers and enhance our own military capability, and at the same time it has enabled our defence industries to work together more effectively.

Of course, it is to export to the United States and beyond as well.

This is a relationship worth preserving. Doing so was a priority for Canada during the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. That is why Canada championed the clause within the convention dealing with the military co-operation of signatory states with countries that are not party to the agreement, countries like the United States.

This clause found in article 21 of the convention and reflected in Bill S-10 strikes a fair balance between humanitarian principles, on the one hand, to which we are absolutely committed, and Canada's security imperatives on the other. It protects Canada's ability to co-operate in a meaningful way with its partners that have not yet signed the agreement, and it complies entirely with Canada's humanitarian obligations under the convention. That is perhaps something that needs reinforcing. Despite all the rhetoric from across the way, we are complying entirely with the requirements of the convention.

The legislation before us today reflects Canada's interpretation of this clause, and as such would allow us to remain fully interoperable with the U.S. military. It would preserve the valuable liaison and exchange positions that the Canadian Armed Forces share with our most important ally. It essentially means that in combat the Canadian Forces would not be obliged to leave U.S. units just because there was a suspicion that cluster munitions might be used.

Of course, members of the Canadian Forces would not use them and would not be directly involved. Of course, our units would never use them. That would violate our obligations under the convention. However, should we leave our U.S. colleagues hanging in Afghanistan, or some other combat mission, just because of the possibility of a legal stricture not having been met?

The fact is, interoperability between our two nations remains essential to Canada's defence and security. It is more important now, in 2013, than ever before. Every dime counts. Every solider counts. Every capability needs to be leveraged, here, within NATO, and in every operation around the world.

Article 21 of the convention reflected in Bill S-10 would also give our men and women in uniform the legal protection they need to continue to co-operate with other non-signatory states, without fear of being disciplined or put on trial. This includes when they are participating in combined military operations, multinational exercises, training opportunities and military co-operation away from the battlefield. The fact is that this kind of co-operation is integral to the work of our military.

That being said, this will not take away from our commitment to fulfill all of our obligations under the convention. The Canadian Armed Forces will at all times, and during all operations, continue to remain bound to these obligations to prohibit the authorization of or participation in any indiscriminate attack, including one using cluster munitions, regardless of whether they are acting independently or with foreign partners.

To put it simply, no Canadian Armed Forces member would ever directly use a cluster munition or specifically ask that one be used in circumstances where the choice of munition used is within the exclusive control of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, as they move forward with implementation, the Chief of the Defence Staff would issue additional directives to ensure this is fully enforced in practice.

These military directives would specifically prohibit Canadian military members on exchange with allied armed forces from using cluster munitions or from giving or receiving training in their use. They will also prohibit the transportation of cluster munitions by the Canadian Armed Forces or by third parties under its control.

Our question to the opposition is this: How are these safeguards somehow insufficient? How does the opposition think that with its self-righteousness tonight it could wish away the reality of a different policy in the United States, a country that happens to be our most important ally? These restrictions, which would be implemented as soon as Canada ratifies the agreement, would actually exceed the convention's requirements.

To conclude, wherever they operate, the Canadian Armed Forces abide by their national legal and humanitarian obligations. Their obligations under the convention are part and parcel of that cross-cutting commitment. As I said at the outset, National Defence has already prohibited the use of cluster munitions in our own operations. We have removed them from active service. We have taken all the necessary steps to destroy our remaining stockpile.

Going forward, Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to the ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and to its ultimate universalization. What does that mean? It means that we want all countries to become states party to this convention, including the United States. We will engage in advocacy. We will engage in outreach. We will engage in diplomacy to that goal. We recognize that in doing so, we reinforce our broader efforts to foster domestic and international security. We also realize that this commitment to our collective security can only be undertaken in close co-operation with partners and allies, some of which have not yet signed the convention.

With that in mind, until such time as the goal of universalization is realized, the legislation before us today strikes the necessary balance to ensure that we remain true to our obligations under the convention, while enabling us to remain a strong and reliable partner in the quest for peace and security both at home and abroad. As such, I call upon my hon. colleagues to support this important legislation so that we can take the next steps in the critical phase of implementation.

Let me close with two personal points. We are living in a dangerous world. I personally have experience with cluster munitions from that most recent theatre of combat for the Canadian Forces, Afghanistan.

The exception being provided for in this legislation is not an abstraction. It is not something we should be arguing about legalistically on blackboards. It is something that is really needed.

When we were walking in the hills and valleys of Afghanistan, more than once during my time in that country, there were moments when one would take a step over some boulders, look across a divide in what seemed to be a remote place, but a place where sheep, people, shepherds and travellers would nevertheless pass, and there they would be, the cluster munitions that had been left, in some cases by the Soviet Union, in some cases by the United States.

I was never a direct witness to the atrocious human tragedy these explosive remnants of war left on Afghan families and on Afghan villages. Fortunately, those travelling with me always managed to see them and stepped away to miss the little tennis-ball-sized balls of destructive power.

However, they were used, not just by countries we would have once considered our enemies, such as the Soviet Union, not only by China, with its growing military power, but by the United States. We may regret that use. That use nevertheless happened. I guarantee that it happened in units where Canadians were either actively embedded, had been embedded before, or afterwards would be embedded.

It would be a shame, in fact outrageous, given the dependence we have had on the United States for partnership in the military field and that NATO has had on the United States in the military field in Afghanistan and elsewhere, for us to be refusing that kind of fellowship, that kind of professional development and that kind of involvement—because U.S. soldiers are also embedded in our units—simply because one particular weapon may have been used on a few occasions in Afghanistan.

Believe me, I do not have cases, and we have studied them a lot, in the United Nations mission elsewhere in Afghanistan, in which cluster munitions were used mistakenly against civilian targets. I hope that they were not. The munitions we found in the mountains had been left there by pilots discharging their loads as they headed back to the aircraft carrier to their base thinking that they had been destroyed, thinking that no one would come to harm.

There is a legacy there of explosive remnants of war that needs our attention. It has received attention. Canada has been one of the foremost countries funding demining programs, funding the destruction of unneeded ammunition in huge quantities in Afghanistan to try to make this wartorn country safer. However, we should not encumber ourselves with an absolutely ridiculous obligation to cut off our co-operation with the United States, our ability to embed with U.S. units, simply because the United States, on this issue, happens to be in a different place, and we would argue behind us in terms of adherence to the convention. It is according to its own decision-making, on the basis of its own sovereignty and given its own military role in the world.

We on this side hope for the passage of this legislation. We hope for understanding. We know that Canadians want that partnership with the United States to continue. We hope the opposition will understand, especially the Liberal Party, that by continuing the kind of rhetoric members have displayed tonight they are really going against a decision they took--

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning to discuss the bill in question, I too must protest as vehemently as possible against the process being followed here.

Bill S-10, which we are discussing this evening, was introduced in the House on December 6, 2012. It took the Conservatives six months to call the bill for debate. When they finally did so, debate lasted 10 minutes, at one in the morning on Wednesday, May 29. Now, after 10 minutes of debate, whereas it took the government six months to bestir itself a little and table the bill, we are being told that time allocation is going to be imposed, because discussion has gone on too long. Moreover, the recommendations for amendments made in the other house do not appear at all in the bill before us.

Cluster munitions have almost no military usefulness and mainly affect civilians. Ninety-eight per cent of those injured by cluster munitions are civilians.

In many cases, these weapons have a relative effectiveness. About 30% of the small sub-munitions packed into the weapon fail to explode. They become sub-munitions, often the size of tennis balls, and often very colourful. They remain in the environment and are spread over a very wide area. Children see them. They are attractive. They play with them and, of course, the sub-munitions blow up in their faces and cause damage we can imagine. The sub-munitions in these weapons become, as it were, tiny but very numerous anti-personnel mines.

Because we are talking about anti-personnel mines, let us make a small comparison with what Canada did with respect to anti-personnel mines. Canada was a leader in that area. It won the esteem not only of many countries, but also of many people all over the world, through the work it did on anti-personnel mines.

One day, I met a Portuguese-speaking senior African dignitary. He told me that he had given his daughter the name Ottavia in honour of the Ottawa convention. Ottawa was, at that time, a word that was full of hope. Now, however, we are talking about cluster munitions. Initially, Canada was true leadership from Canada, but nowadays, there is nothing of the sort. In fact, we are regressing and destroying everything. In the negotiation process, Canada quickly became a spoilsport, as it were. Most of the countries involved were opposed to the interoperability provision that Canada had already managed to have included in the convention, but Canada pushed for it and got it. Quite frankly, there is nothing to be proud about in all of this.

We have before us Bill S-10. If we had no reason to be proud during the negotiation process, we will certainly have good cause to be ashamed if this bill is passed. Despite its title, it is not a bill to implement the convention. It is a bill to lay waste to the convention. Bill S-10, in fact, will invalidate the convention.

The bill provides the means to circumvent the interoperability provision by allowing Canada to aid, abet, counsel or conspire to use cluster munitions, under a convention that seeks to abolish the very use of these munitions.

A little earlier, we heard comments to the effect that the NDP would be opposed to these changes because of petty partisan politics or some such reasoning.

Just in case anybody actually believed that, allow me to quote a number of people in order to demonstrate just how broad the consensus is against this bill and to show that this consensus is made up of people from all walks of life.

I would like to quote the leader of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, as well as the chair of the Department of Security and International Affairs at the Canadian Forces College. In my opinion, these two people should know what they are talking about. I would also like to quote a foreign dignitary, the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, and also the hon. Warren Allmand, former solicitor general of Canada.

Let us start with Earl Turcotte, the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated this agreement. When Mr. Turcotte saw the direction in which the negotiations were heading and what was the result was going to be, he resigned. I admire his courage. It shows just how outraged he was to see what the government had in store for us.

He said, “The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention to date.”

Regarding the current government's stance on cluster munitions, the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, remarked that it is “timid, inadequate and regressive”. Fortunately, there will be a change in government in 2015.

I would like to quote Walter Dorn, the chair of the Department of Security and International Affairs at Canadian Forces College. It is a long quote, but I believe it is worth hearing:

As someone who works daily with those who have deployed in combined operations and who might do so myself as a civilian under the Code of Service Discipline, I have to say that the current draft legislation could put us in a compromising position.

Those deployed on behalf of Canada do not want to be forced to violate the treaty or be associated with violations. The terms of the bill would oblige Canadians to accept orders which they might consider illegal. It would then put them in a legal limbo between national and international law. Soldiers are trained to obey “lawful orders”. This would create confusion because the laws are contradictory. A complete prohibition, as obliged by the convention, would be much clearer.

He added:

...clause 11 of the current draft legislation seems to be in legal contravention of the treaty. It gives rise to serious moral dilemmas and weakens the norm against the use of these terrible weapons. It should be removed or amended.

Finally, the Hon. Warren Allmand said:

As presently drafted, Bill S-10 contains provisions that are contrary to the treaty's objects and purposes. It makes no sense for Canada to join a treaty regime whose purpose is an absolute prohibition on the use and transfer of cluster munitions on the one hand and, on the other hand, to promulgate national legislation that creates exceptions allowing Canadian personnel to carry out precisely the types of activities that are proscribed or forbidden by the convention.

Obviously, everyone agrees. All anyone needs to do is read the bill.

As I said at the beginning, this bill is designed not to implement, but rather to destroy the treaty. Agreeing to this bill and passing it as is places the Canadian military in an extremely difficult position, in addition to setting a bad example for other countries. Canada will still be the “bad guy” on the international stage.

After the debacle concerning the effort to combat desertification, Kyoto, the arms trade treaty with no clear outcome, and the new directives on international co-operation, Canada still looks like it does not want to play ball.

This bill has huge flaws. It must be reviewed and we will certainly not support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his very strong speech. He has made clear the great weaknesses in this bill.

One truly deplorable aspect was not addressed in my colleague’s speech, and that is the fact that this bill comes from the Senate. I must also point out that we are debating something so fundamental under a time limitation.

Canada has already played a special role in undermining the negotiation of the convention, but Bill S-10 goes much farther. It offers an outright loophole, so that Canada can be complicit in the use and even the manufacture of cluster munitions.

Would my colleague like to talk about the fact that this bill has come, unfortunately, from the Senate? It could have come from the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example. In other words, the government has not played straight with the House with respect to this issue that is so sensitive.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I thank the House for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at how the bills have been coming from the Senate, there is a pattern here. We are not able to have a close examination of the bills, and they come from the other place with major flaws. That is the case in this bill.

The whole issue of cluster munitions is something that many people have been working on for a very long time. These are heinous, awful arms.To explain to those who are not aware, they are bombs that contain what they call bomblets. These bombs are dropped, often in a theatre of war, and as they are dropped, bomblets fall out from them, hundreds of bomblets that are the size of tennis balls.

They are heinous because 98% of the people who are affected by them are civilians. We are talking about children. I could show members pictures online of children who have lost arms and legs, people who have died. They are as bad as land mines, and some people would say even worse because of the way in which they are used and the way they affect, particularly, kids.

The global stockpile of cluster munitions totals approximately four billion. We have a large task to rid ourselves of them. That is what this treaty we signed on to was supposed to do. In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines and cluster bombs. These are bombs that are used in theatre where our armed forces are active, as well as civilians.

If we take a look how these arms are developed, they are quite heinous because their intention is to, essentially, trick people into believing that they are not bombs, that they are actually something else, just like land mines are horrific. There is no question we have to get rid of them.

As to the history of cluster munitions, they were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, by the British in the Falklands, by our coalition forces in the first Gulf War, by warring factions in Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. In fact, when we look back to previous conflicts, we have seen them used by coalition forces working together.

In 2010, it was decided that we would come together and have a treaty that would ban them. This included 18 NATO members. The U.S., sadly, was not one of them. The current American policy, according to reports, is that cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory. They are integral to every army or marine manoeuvre element and, in some cases, constitute up to 50% of tactical indirect fire support. As in the case of land mines, the Americans have some work to do to get rid of them.

We also have to go after other countries like Russia, and China, to push to have these banned. We can lead here; many people were quite enthusiastic when Canada signed on to this treaty. The problem was when the legislation came forward. That is where we are today.

What we have in front of us is a bill that would, and this is not just the opinion of the NDP members or me, undermine the credibility of the treaty we signed on to, to the point where people are saying it would be better not to have legislation at all. That is truly saddening, because this was an opportunity for all parties to get behind an international treaty, a treaty that would put us into the same kind of frame that we had when we were proud to sign on to the Ottawa protocol to ban land mines. We hoped that would have happened. When the government brought forward the legislation, Bill S-10, we looked at it and said there are problems here. People went to committee at the Senate and pointed out all of the problems with the legislation; in particular, the problem in clause 11.

It states, and I will put it into everyday language, that even though we have signed on to this treaty not to use cluster munitions, we could actually use them. It is a huge, massive loophole, and the language is the interoperability.

Instead of listening to the people who deal with international treaties and have them lead, which would be the Department of Foreign Affairs, the government took the advice clearly, there is no question about this, only from the Department of National Defence. Should the Department of National Defence be consulted? Absolutely. Should the Department of National Defence write the legislation or drive the legislation? Absolutely not. This is an international treaty that was negotiated with our allies and partners. This is an act of diplomacy. To have the Department of National Defence decide the terms, like we saw here, has undermined this legislation.

It is not even about being a standby with our friends from the United States, for example, and they were using them, which is bad enough, but what it means in this legislation is that we could be actually using them because of this loophole.

It means that this treaty we signed on to is being undermined by the government and the bill, and the Conservatives do not recognize it. We have had testimony from people who negotiated this. The chief negotiator, Earl Turcotte said, “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”.

Why does the government not listen to expert advice? Another quote, former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said, “It is 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 former prime minister of one of our allies. The reason he is saying that is because he actually cares about ridding the world of these heinous arms. What does the government do? It says it will not even entertain amendments.

I would hope the Conservatives would listen to their own Minister of National Defence. I will finish with this. The Minister of National Defence earlier today said it is not perfect. He indicated in his own comments that this is something that needs to be changed. Given that the minister admitted that the Conservatives are forcing through a bill that is not up to standard, I would hope sincerely that they would be open this time, because this issue is so important to our allies, and that they would listen to those who want to see amendments. Every single person who went through committee who was not part of the Department of National Defence said the bill is flawed, it is wrong, we should not pass it and it would undermine our credibility.

If the Conservatives want to listen to others or just be stubborn and steadfast and only listen to themselves, they have a choice. We need to amend it and for that reason, we will not support the bill until we see amendments.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that was introduced in this House literally at midnight very recently. Bill S-10, as it indicates, comes from the Senate. Here we go again.

I mentioned in my comments responding to the government's closure motion, which is the 45th time the government has brought in time allocation, we should have debated this bill thoroughly and been given a chance for close examination of it for two reasons. It is extremely important because it is about an international treaty we signed on to in 2008. It is a bill that has been sitting around with the government for quite a while, but its origins were in the Senate. It is problematic that we have an unelected body yet again having the first go at legislation. It is wrong, and in this case, it has undermined the treaty that we signed. I will explain that in a minute.

We have to take issue in this House when bills come from the other place, because it is up to us to deal with bills as elected members to start with.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for consent to share my time with my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill S-10—Time Allocation Motion

[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.

[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.

Cluster Munitions

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions in support of Bill S-10 signed by residents of Regina and the surrounding area.

The petitioners note that cluster munitions cause a great deal of harm to civilians and that Canada is among the 110 nations of the world which have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The petitioners call for an amendment to Bill S-10 to close the loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in using cluster munitions, for any reason. They also ask that Bill S-10 mention the positive obligations that Canada has assumed by signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Bill S-10—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage of Bill S-2, an act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

Cluster Munitions

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from people from St. Albert, Edmonton and Calgary who want greater action to be taken by Parliament on dealing with cluster munitions.

The petitioners want amendments to Bill S-10 to close the loopholes, making it clear no Canadians should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions, including explicit prohibition on investment in cluster munition production, and to add mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed in signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from a number of people in my riding and outside as well.

In view of the cluster munitions bill that is coming up before the Senate, Bill S-10, the petitioners are reminding us that cluster munitions cause great harm to civilians at the time of their use. In view of the fact that the majority of our NATO allies actually signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, they want an amendment of Bill S-10 to close the loopholes to make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions at any time, anywhere or for any reason.

They also ask for a mention of the positive obligations Canada has assumed by signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Bill S-10.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions.

The first petition is signed by people who are concerned about cluster munitions. Canada has signed, along with 110 nations, to ban cluster munitions, and Bill S-10 provides significant loopholes and exceptions.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the bill to close the loopholes and specify Canada's international obligations under the convention.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions today.

The first one is a petition regarding Bill S-10.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend Bill S-10 to close loopholes and make it clear that no Canadian should ever be involved in the use of cluster munitions.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[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.

[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.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for his stream-of-consciousness therapy.

Our government, however, is very focused. Our top priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. With that in mind, this afternoon we will continue second reading debate on the cornerstone item of our legislative agenda, which is Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We will continue this debate tomorrow.

Next Monday, May 6, will be the fourth day of second reading debate on this important job creation bill, and Tuesday May 7 will be the fifth and final day.

Once debate is concluded, the House will have an opportunity to vote on the substantive job creation measures in this bill.

On Wednesday, the House will debate Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This will be the fourth time this bill is debated at second reading so it is my hope and expectation that this bill will come to a vote.

With the vote, there will be another clear choice before the House. Members will be voting to allow for national standards for on-reserve drinking water. This is a question of basic equality. I know the opposition voted against equality for women on reserves when it voted against Bill S-2, matrimonial property on reserves, but I hope they have stopped grasping at excuses to oppose equal treatment for first nations and will now support Bill S-8.

While I am speaking about aboriginal affairs, allow me to take the time to notify the House that I am designating, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Thursday, May 9, for consideration in committee of the whole all votes under Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.

On Thursday, we will continue to advance the economic priority of our legislative agenda by debating Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, in the morning. Following question period on Thursday, May 9, we will continue Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act at third reading. I understand there is broad support for this bill, so I hope to see it pass swiftly. Then we can move on to other legislation, including: Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act; Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the coastal fisheries protection act; and bill S-14, the fighting foreign bribery act.

Finally, Friday, May 10 will be the seventh allotted day, which I understand will be for the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

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 read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business hour today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize the damage to civilian populations caused by cluster munitions during armed conflicts and even for years afterwards.

This afternoon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will appear before the Senate committee. We know that Bill S-10, which would ratify the convention, has major flaws.

Will the minister point out these flaws in committee and commit today to addressing them?