Bill C-6 (Historical)

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions

This enactment implements Canada’s commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In particular, it establishes prohibitions and offences for certain activities involving cluster munitions, explosive submunitions and explosive bomblets.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would just remind the hon. member to direct his comments through the Chair and not directly at our colleagues.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say it is a delight, but it is absolutely a privilege to stand and speak to Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I want to make it clear right from the beginning that I do not think that any of us in the House actually support the use of cluster munitions. As my colleague just said, many of us are parents and grandparents. As a teacher I have worked for a peaceful world for all children for many years of my life.

I am also one of those fortunate ones who has never actually lived in a place engaged in war, as many of us in this room, yet today, with technology what happens in war is brought right into our living rooms through television, the Internet, and our social media. Even if we did not see those images, the description of what cluster bombs and land mines can do is etched in our memories.

I am sure many of us in this room were activists to get rid of land mines. Many of us have worked very hard against the use of cluster bombs as well. Someone described it earlier as little D-sized batteries, hundreds and hundreds of them, exploding and the impact of that explosion hitting something like two to five football fields. When we have that image in our minds, especially now that soccer is being played and we can all see the size of the field, we wonder how many children get impacted. It is not just talking about something that happens overseas, it is also about what our soldiers had to face when they went to Afghanistan. They were in situations where there were land mines and cluster bombs.

Having said that, it is with a great deal of reluctance that I am going to be speaking against the motion that is before us. I was very proud of the day that my country, Canada, signed the UN convention. We were not the only ones; 113 countries from around the world signed that convention and 84 countries have ratified it. We signed the convention in 2008 and here we are in 2014 debating this.

Why has it taken this long for the bill to come into the House? It entered the House a few days before the end of this session under time allocation. If any bill should not be forced through time allocation, it should be a bill like this. We should get to have that kind of debate that is necessary and make sure that we end up with legislation that really works well, especially when the legislation is tackling something as fundamental and as serious as cluster bombs. That is what we should be doing.

I am not going to spend too much time talking about time allocation because that is the way the government does business. It does not really want to hear serious debate or a different point of view. It wants to limit that. In my riding there are people who are concerned and they want me to come to the House and represent them and speak for them. I have constituents in Newton—North Delta who care very deeply about the use of cluster munitions. They are absolutely opposed and they would understand why I am standing in the House today in opposition to this piece of legislation.

Our foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre does an amazing job at committee. I know that he is very persuasive. He has often persuaded me to look at things differently. I know how hard he works, how knowledgeable he is on this file, and how much he cares about Canada's reputation in the international arena. I also know that we would have to go a long way to find a member of Parliament who is more interested in working on this file in a non-partisan way, in a way that will best serve Canada and best serve us in our international community.

This was an opportunity missed by my colleagues across the way. If they had heard not only his concerns but concerns expressed by others, including some of us, and had actually taken a look at section 11 of this legislation, and if they had removed that, then the government would have had the kind of coverage we have heard that the section is supposed to present.

The agreement already has section 22 in it. The interoperability clause is there. Our member, my esteemed colleague, the foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre actually agreed, or offered, to lift the wording from the convention and put it into this legislation word for word, so that it would provide the kind of protection we heard about from our colleagues across the way.

That really was not the intention here. It is only when I listened to him that I began to see why this bill is as flawed as it is today. It may be the process it went through even before it came here. Of course we know that our colleagues across the way do have an allergy to data, science, listening to experts, or anything that might disagree with them. That would mean that they might actually have to change their minds on something. In parliamentary democracy that is supposed to happen. That is the way it works. Otherwise, there would be no need for us to debate. We could all just come in here with our minds already made up, sit, and say that is it. However, that is not how we are set up.

Here we have section 11. I heard the member for Ottawa Centre talking about that particular section and the fact that whenever we go to war we do put all kinds of caveats. We do have all kinds of arrangements that we make as to what we are going to do and what we are not going to do.

Why is it, in this case, that we have that reluctance toward doing that? The member was talking about section 11 and that we have categorically said that Canada will not use cluster bombs. Then we have a section in this bill that says, however, we will direct or ask or lead to. It reminded me of Monty Python. I do not know if members ever watch much British television. Monty Python is extremely funny, but it is also extremely serious. It deals with some horrible issues in a very entertaining way. As the member for Ottawa Centre was going through the bill, I thought that it was beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch, in which we are going to say, “We will not use cluster munitions. We will not; however, we can direct or take direction or give direction for the use thereof.”

Therein lies the problem with this bill. That is why, in good conscience, being a mother, a grandmother, and a teacher, I could not possibly support this. There is an escape hatch in this bill that is miles wide.

We either believe in the use of cluster munitions or we believe in banning them. We cannot have these halfway measures when it comes to something as critical as this. I think about my own grandchildren, and I think, “There, but for the grace of God, go they.” They could have been unfortunate enough to have been born in a war-torn country where, as little kids, they pick up little batteries or what they think are little toys that could explode. We all know how horrific that is. I do not have to paint that picture. I actually do not have the heart to paint that kind of a picture. Why would we want to have an escape hatch that is a mile wide when we know that the interoperability clause in section 22 already gives protection and cover to Canadian soldiers?

I heard a lot about our neighbour, the U.S., and how we co-operate with the Americans and we work closely with them, and they are our great ally. All of that is true. However, we do not always agree with everything that our colleagues to the south of us believe in. We just found out recently that we do not agree with them on some pretty major issues, like maybe pipelines. However, on the other hand, when we deal with the Americans, when we have gone into war with them, we have stipulated what our forces are going to do or not going to do. Those are the kinds of agreements that are made because when we decide to go into a place where our soldiers go, we do not say, “Just go and do whatever.” When we are working in partnership, whether with the U.K. or Australia or the U.S.—

[An hon. member]

NATO.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

NATO. I thank my colleague from Burnaby.

It does not matter. We ourselves, as a sovereign nation, write down the parameters, the caveats, the restrictions, and then we decide to expand them.

For me it is not good enough to say, “Because the U.S. has not signed this particular convention, therefore the legislation we are going to introduce right now has to have an escape hatch a mile wide.” That is just not going to sit right with me, nor with many Canadians who are looking to us to set an example. Let me just say that we are not the only ones, sitting across this House or at the committee, who realize that the government has signed a convention and that weakens that convention, that signature on that piece of paper, through this legislation. I know my colleagues get very upset whenever there is some thought that somehow Canada's international standing might have suffered slightly over the last few years. I would say that we have been smacked a few times recently by the international community.

We had the rapporteur on first nations who came in and wrote a pretty damning report. Our reaction to it was to attack him instead of looking at the real plight of many of our first nations communities. The ILO has looked at some of our approaches to labour issues and it has not had many kind words to say about us either. We no longer have a seat on the Security Council. I have had the pleasure, when I was in my other file, of talking to many international diplomats in Ottawa who were saying how our international standing had been damaged.

We have gone from being the peacekeeper and a country that played a critical role in bringing different people together to build a consensus to a country that signs a convention and then, through this House with a majority, looks at weakening what it signed.

Here is a quote from the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser:

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 hurts. It hurts me when I hear the term “regressive” being used to describe Canada in the international community. I can remember the days when I taught social studies and history 12 . I would talk with great pride about the role Canada plays on the international stage, and when we get things like this, it does begin to disturb us.

Here is a quote from Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada. He said:

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

Let me explain again what we are saying in this legislation.

By the way, we do not have difficulty with this legislation. It is only clause 11, and if that section had been removed, we would not be here debating this bill tonight. It could have been passed and gone on to other stages. However, the reason we are here tonight is that we have a huge contradiction. We are saying that Canadian soldiers and Canada would not use cluster munitions. On the other hand, we are saying that if we are working with another country, we may direct their use. I cannot fathom how that is adequate. For me, as I said, this is where we enter the land of Monty Python.

My colleague earlier also talked about the Red Cross. Those of us who know the workings of the Red Cross know that it very rarely gets involved in political debate. Its work is more of advocacy and delivering services on the ground. However, in this case it was almost forced to get involved, because it sees first-hand the real impact of these cluster munitions. The Red Cross is on the front line.

The Red Cross said that clause 11:

...could permit activities that undermine the object and purpose of the convention and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than bringing about their elimination.

That is a pretty damning comment from a group that does not really get involved in politics.

Let me get back to saying what we would really like to see. Of course we want to have the strongest legislation possible to ban cluster munitions, but this particular bill is not it. I would urge my colleagues to take it back and accept amendments, which they have not done so far. Let us make sure that this bill would do what we want it to.

At this point, the bill is really problematic. As long as it has clause 11, it is impossible for us to support this bill, because with that little piece in there, this bill would not actually ban the use of cluster munitions 100%. We either do or we do not. There is no halfway.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I reject all of what the member opposite has said about Canada's reputation on the world stage. We have a stellar reputation on the world stage under the leadership of our Prime Minister. Just three weeks ago, we hosted a summit in Toronto, where we had reputable people in the room. They were people like President Kikwete of Tanzania; Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations; Dr. Jim Yong Kim, from the World Bank; Melinda Gates, from the Gates Foundation; and the Queen of Jordan. They all praised Canada for the work we are doing. We announced $3.5 billion for maternal, newborn, and child health.

Since 2006 we have committed $208 million to demining, advocacy, education, and victims' assistance, and our reputation globally is stellar. We continue to work on these things. We have worked in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, the DRC, Georgia, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Palau, Ecuador, Peru, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Uganda. These are all places where we are working very hard.

My question for the member is this: why does she want to disadvantage and criminalize our own military personnel when we are on joint efforts with our closest ally, the United States?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there we saw an example of a Monty Pythonish sketch, so to speak.

First she says she totally rejects what I said, but the rapporteur who came and reported on the living conditions of our first nations people did not visit some other country. He actually visited communities right here in Canada, and he reported on that. The report was so moving that many people I talked to said it brought them to tears and made them feel ashamed. There is also the fact that we have lost our seat on the Security Council. Let us pretend that did not happen either.

I am not saying that some good things are not happening internationally. Of course they are. However, we always have to look at where we could be doing more and where we could be doing better.

Let us get to the question. It is very easy for me, actually. Section 22 of the convention that we signed has an interoperability clause right in it. We offered to lift that, word for word, and put it into this legislation. Instead, the government chose to weaken the bill by putting in clause 11, which actually does not have Canada 100% opposed to the use of cluster munitions, since we can give direction and take directions from others under this wording.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect there is not a member in the House who supports the need for cluster bombs, or anything like that sort of munition, in our arsenal.

It is important for us to recognize the horrific nature of cluster munitions. There is no specific target. Quite often, it is the most vulnerable in society that are most affected by its use. After initially being dropped, a high percentage of it never goes off. It just sits in the fields waiting to be discovered, whether it is by a farmer, a child, or others who might be coming by. There is very high percentage of civilian casualties, not to mention the loss of limbs and so forth.

I would ask the member if she might want to provide some additional comment about the horror stories and why it so important for the world to do something about this type of munition.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are debating legislation in the House we often fail to recognize the impact on society. We do not always realize how the wording we have chosen for the clauses in the bill will be played out in the real world.

In the countries where cluster munitions are still around, as are land mines, the images I have seen have been really horrific. It is not an image that I would want to experience first-hand: children having bits of their limbs blown off, children's faces being shattered, children being blinded. I just cannot imagine anything as horrific as this is. I have seen the pictures and I really do not want to see them again.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. I appreciate the late hour and any reference to Monty Python is welcome, but I find that at this hour we are about to pass Bill C-6 without taking the additional steps that should be taken.

This is one of the rare times that we have seen an amendment, and it did come from the parliamentary secretary, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out. It was to remove the word “use”. However, we recognize—and there have been many examples in this debate—that in the wording, there is far too much latitude around Canadian engagement with the use of cluster munitions, and we could have used much tighter language for interoperability, as we did in the Ottawa land mines treaty.

My question for the hon. member for Newton—North Delta is this: does she believe that at this late date, when we are past the point of amendments, it is worth turning down Bill C-6 in the hope that Canada could implement a treaty that it has in fact ratified to meet its real objectives?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have lived with the premise that it is never too late when the will is there. If the will exists on the part of the majority sitting on that side of the House, those kinds of changes could be made, this bill could be fixed, and it could be supported by every member in the House.

[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?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to guess why my colleagues across the way have not taken that kind of position. I cannot imagine anybody on either side of the House supporting the use of cluster munitions.

What we have is a bill that is fundamentally flawed, one in which the government has inadvertently opened an escape hatch that we do not need. The interoperability clause that exists in section 2 of the convention is more than adequate to enable Canada to work with its allies. We as a country can have all kinds of caveats when we work with other allies, but to leave the possibility that our soldiers could be directing or ordering the use of these munitions as a result of leaving clause 11 in there is unconscionable.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to questions on the order paper. They are questions nos. 489 and 490.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for being here tonight to debate a very important bill. I am honoured to speak to Bill C-6 because it is closely tied to our Canadian identity and to Canada's involvement in the community of nations. In addition, the bill deals with a serious moral issue.

It is crucial for us to carefully study this bill so that we can understand the extent of our commitment as we consider passing or abandoning a bill that will create so many exceptions that, in the end, the Convention on Cluster Munitions that Canada has signed but not yet ratified will be devoid of all substance. The convention has already been undermined by the position taken by Canada, which was looking to remove all substance.

I am 47 years old. The Prime Minister has kept the promise he made to his voter base and his core supporters to profoundly change Canada. He is doing just that.

Bill C-6 is a perfect example of the profound changes that are being made to our country, transforming it to such an extent that I no longer recognize the Canada of my childhood, 25 or 30 years ago. The Canada I was proud of is increasingly becoming an illusion and a cause of embarrassment and even shame for many of our citizens. This is a very serious problem.

Canada has long been a leader and innovator. It still has quite a strong reputation around the world as a country that has promoted, defended and put in place a series of measures and actively supported and guided all the nations of this world in affirming, defending and protecting human rights so that human dignity is defended around the world.

Former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, who was minister of external affairs at the time, established the corps of peacekeepers, soldiers of peace, so that there would be an interposition force in conflicts around the world. Canada was recognized as an innovator for that.

Unfortunately, our country has now become particularly marginal in terms of its involvement and having its soldiers once again proudly wear the blue helmets of peacekeepers and serve as an active interposition force between parties in conflict around the world.

Canada also led the charge within the Commonwealth to force South Africa to abandon its apartheid system, which had been in place for decades. That particularly cruel system had resulted in intolerable situations in which people were subdued and their fundamental rights violated.

They were even killed in some instances. We remember particularly tragic episodes in the history of South Africa in which many people paid with their lives for claiming rights as simple as the right to live in dignity, to have enough to eat, to be housed or simply to have a place in society.

We can also be proud of that legacy of Brian Mulroney’s Progressive Conservative government. However, it now seems so long ago, and we appear to be increasingly moving away from the ideal that existed at the time.

In the 1990s, Canada also welcomed and supported the community of nations in implementing the convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines, also called the Ottawa treaty.

As I pointed out when I put a question to my colleague from Don Valley West, our government was so convinced of the validity and value of that treaty that it signed and ratified it on the same day, December 3, 1997. It was an admirable, far-reaching gesture. We can find no better example of a government moving from words to action.

Unfortunately, the effect of the bill that is before us today is to undermine a convention that has already been significantly undermined by the cycle of negotiations that the Canadian government seriously compromised. Canada forced the principle of interoperability into the convention so that our soldiers could potentially transport and use cluster munitions.

This class of weapons is far from new. Here I must admit a part of my own personal journey. When I was young, I was truly fascinated by human beings’ ability to invent all kinds of ways to gain the advantage on the battlefield and to innovate in order to neutralize and even destroy the enemy. That led me to find out about all those ways, land-based, naval and aerial.

It also helped me understand how weapons as particular, dangerous and destructive as cluster munitions could have evolved to such an advanced degree that it really sends shivers down one’s spine. Whether in bomb or missile form, cluster munitions can scatter dozens of mini-bombs or mini-missiles across the landscape. There is virtually no way to protect oneself from this type of weapon. Furthermore, once they have been used, it is very hard and dangerous to neutralize them, as is the case with anti-personnel weapons.

I listened carefully to the speeches by my Conservative Party colleagues, and I admit I absolutely failed to understand how they could defend the indefensible. I hope the image I am going to use will clearly illustrate how untenable the Conservative government’s position on Bill C-6 is.

What is being suggested as a way to prevent our soldiers from being prosecuted and convicted for using or transporting cluster munitions is comparable to my telling my son, if he sees the boy next door hit students with a baseball bat in the school yard, that I give him permission to do the same thing because I think that is fair.

This is absolutely indefensible. I do not know whether there is a better image than that, but that is the one that comes to mind. It is a deliberately brutal image. I will not conceal that fact. It is an image that shows the extent to which I think we are venturing onto a very slippery slope.

In the past three years, it has been an enormous privilege for me to serve as the member for Beauport—Limoilou and to be able to sit in the House of Commons with my 308 colleagues. I have been able to speak with people from all walks of life who have absolutely extraordinary knowledge, expertise and experience, which makes me feel quite humble. It also makes me see how far Canada’s leadership and, more particularly, the influence it can have, have declined everywhere.

I am an international relations enthusiast. A reputation is built gradually. Canada began to build its identity starting in World War I, and even before that, when the Laurier government demanded Canadian independence from the British crown. It has benefited enormously from a particularly favourable geographic situation and, at certain times, has managed to position itself admirably on the geopolitical stage.

That heritage, that clout and the influence that Canada once enjoyed are being whittled away. Our nation still wields some influence since, fortunately, people in different countries are able to make the distinction. That is what I heard on my few trips abroad. Foreigners tend to make the distinction between the government's position and the values of Canadians. This is a very minor consolation.

It is simply not good enough to say that fortunately, people believe that Canadians still have good values, when the government has gone off track and completely in the opposite direction. We cannot just stand idly by and forsake our parents', grandparents' and great-grandparents' heritage. This heritage makes it possible for Canadians to enjoy a certain degree of privilege. When Canadians meet people from other corners of the globe, they listen to us and respect us. We have credibility when we speak.

There is something that is really disappointing about this government's approach, and that is its hypocrisy. There is no need to mince words.

We cannot claim to want to eventually banish cluster munitions without taking steps to avoid their use. The government has created a huge loophole in the convention with Bill C-6. It is just hot air, nothing but a marketing ploy, a PR exercise that will achieve very little at the end of the day, and that is truly disappointing. It betrays the trust that our constituents place in us. That is why, like my NDP colleagues, I am going to oppose the passage of this bill at third reading.

It is well nigh impossible to describe just how horrific the use of cluster munitions is.

That is why I evoked memories of my adolescence and my young adult life. I was interested in global issues, defence and the tools a country has to wage war and defend its territory. It is staggering to see the capacity of the human spirit to invent new tools that are increasingly sophisticated, broad and blind, as cluster munitions are, in order to target indiscriminately, and even primarily, civilians as opposed to combatants.

I would like to recall a very recent memory. I was learning about the advances in robotic applications and artificial intelligence on the battlefield. I will describe what I learned, which did not completely surprise me. I must admit that I was shocked to see just how easy it is to lose control. It is virtually unstoppable. We all have pictures in our heads of science fiction movies such as Star Wars, in which we see human-like combat robots deploy, fire indiscriminately and find a way of seizing the advantage on the battlefield. Indeed, the fiction pales into insignificance compared to reality.

Now, the reality is robots that have practically no humanoid appearance but a lot of characteristics found in other parts of the animal world, including the insect world. The concept that particularly struck me was that of autonomous robotic swarms. Currently, there is, for example, still some human control over the use of drones. This remote control makes it possible to keep one's distance and kill or injure people elsewhere in the world very easily while feeling a lot less implicated. This leads to huge ethical and personal conscience problems.

However, we now have very small autonomous systems that are able to cause death and destruction in innumerable swarms. I am referring to tens, hundreds or even thousands of small robots that can very easily injure or kill people wherever they are in the world and against which it is impossible to defend oneself, as is the case with cluster munitions.

When I was in university, one of the concepts that I studied in the area of international relations was obviously that of the sword and the shield. This concept indicated that for every improvement made to the sword in order to pierce the shield, the hope was to improve the shield and ward off the increased offensive capacity. Now, this concept seems increasingly outdated to me. Realistically speaking, cluster munitions are a good example of the fact that this indeed the case. It is virtually impossible to guard against swarming, a missile or a cluster bomb.

It is a system of offensive weapons that is particularly pernicious and devious. That is why I want to warn my colleagues. Our soldiers could potentially commit innumerable and immoral actions. In terms of conscience, and considering the responsibility that we have as elected members and, more fundamentally, as Canadian citizens, we need to be cognizant of the fact that we could cause our soldiers to commit such actions.

I hope that my contribution to the debate will have enlightened my colleagues in the governing party and that Bill C-6 will not pass.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague's speech. It was quite wide-ranging, so I cannot air every part of it, but I want to hit a few of the points.

First, he mentioned Mr. Pearson and peacekeeping. Today there is not much demand for Canadians as peacekeepers. They go to countries that have large militaries, they subsidize those militaries, and they do the job. Africans look after Africans and Asians look after Asians, and they do quite well.

However, the member might note—I do not know if he wants to do the whole history—that Mr. Pearson also brought nuclear weapons into Canada. I do not know if he agreed with nuclear weapons or not, but he brought them into Canada. Nuclear weapons, I think, are worse than cluster munitions.

Now you said that we are going to use and transport cluster munitions. First of all, we do not have any cluster munitions now. We had them in the past. I guess that at the time, people thought it was a good idea. They do not think it is a good idea anymore. In any case, we are not committed to using or transporting cluster munitions.

The other point is that you have a view of the world and we have a view of the world. You may think that we are diminished, somehow, in the world. We do not. We think we are doing quite well in the world. We think we have a very strong position in the world. We stand up for what we believe, and you do not.