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.

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out a couple of things that actually touch on reality. We talked about circumstances over which Canadians would have no control. Let me give one that actually happened in Afghanistan, that Canadian soldiers faced in the field not all that long ago.

A team of 30 Canadian soldiers was guarding a school for young girls and boys in Afghanistan, when they came under attack by the Taliban. They were outnumbered and out-gunned, and they called in air support to help them out. They had no idea what munitions the aircraft were going to be carrying, from the United States or from anywhere else. They had no clue. It is unlikely, but if they happened to be carrying cluster munitions and they were used, I would suggest that is not a crime on the part of the Canadian soldiers.

I ask my colleague across the way a question about air refuelling. We have a Canadian air refueller, and we had many of them operating in various conflicts, multinationally, with forces of other nations carrying weapons. Should we refuse to refuel an aircraft from the United States because it might be carrying cluster munitions?

There is example after example of Canadians having no control over what the other country is doing. If we follow that to the extreme, we would never operate with the United States in any region of conflict, ever. Maybe that is what my colleague would like; I do not know.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians watching tonight, I am sure they wonder what we are talking about here. We are talking about a treaty. The Conservatives are doing a half measure here, whereby they are saying we do not believe in cluster munitions but if they are happening we have to agree with them.

My colleague is well adapted to being in the military, and he says the Americans have not used them and are not planning on using them. Can he explain what other NATO countries are doing? Compared to us, are all the other NATO countries in the same position as we are? What do they think of our treaty? How do they stand when they are going to go into a theatre of war, and how are they going to treat the cluster munitions? How are they going to deal with this? Do we look as if we are kind of playing a half measure, and is that what Canadians think we are doing here, that we are really not standing against these terrible bombs that are being produced and being used in a theatre of war?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me just add a couple of things from Afghanistan.

There were British forces, Danish forces, Netherlands forces, and others who were interoperating with the Americans just as we were. Those could have been British, Danish, or Dutch soldiers guarding the school in Afghanistan. The same conditions and considerations would apply. If they accepted help from an American F-16 that happened to be carrying cluster munitions, they are not going to charge their soldiers for being saved by an ally. That is ludicrous. Nobody condones or wants to continue the use of cluster munitions. However, at the same time, we can do what we did.

By the way, during negotiations we were not the only country to express the need to protect interoperability. Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K. all had the same concerns as we do. It is nice to be able to sit in here and be pure, and that is what we should be to the maximum extent possible, but there is a real world out there where things are not pure, and we are operating against people on the other side who are definitely not pure. It does not mean we go down to their level, but it means we have to protect ourselves as well, and we have to respect countries like the United States that have far greater responsibilities in the world than we do.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are considering a bill sponsored by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I have a few preliminary remarks to make before commenting specifically on it.

This week, we have been sitting late into the evening to debate in haste bills that the Conservative government wants to push through. However, this bill was introduced in the House on December 6, 2012. The Conservatives then took six months to bring it to the debate stage. Once that was done, they imposed time allocation on us to limit debate, and now they have started up again with the same bill one year later.

The Conservatives often accuse us of hypocrisy and wanting to delay legislation, but it is they who constantly diminish democracy by forcing Parliament’s hand. I would point out that we are on our 64th time allocation motion and the Conservatives have a majority. They therefore control the agenda.

In these circumstances, they have convened a botched debate on a bill as debatable as Bill C-6. Here we see all the consideration the Conservatives have for world affairs: they legislate hastily late at night before thinned ranks.

It is as though regulating the production and purchase of cluster munitions did not merit having the Conservatives devote a little more time to it. The reason for this haste is obvious: they have no desire to give Canadians any way of realizing that the bill before us serves no other purpose than to prevent the application of the convention is supposed to implement.

This legislative step backward will have definite consequences that everyone here must know in his or her soul and conscience before approving the principle of it. I can state right away that this backtracking from our desire to regulate cluster munitions will mean death, suffering and blood.

The Conservative members who speak after me will naturally say I am exaggerating. They will pretend they want to pass the bill precisely in order to prevent my prediction from coming true. However, we members of the NDP do not hide behind empty words. We do not call deregulation reform or a step backward progress. We look at the reality head-on.

I see the reality of cluster munitions and conventional weapons every time I visit the two Royal Canadian Legions in my riding. I encounter that reality every Remembrance Day. It is written in every wound of every veteran who lost an arm, a leg or a hand in combat. The reality of cluster munitions is terribly cruel.

These bombs were used for the first time during World War II. Since then, they have been used on all battlefields, including the most recent ones in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. These weapons were designed to disperse explosive submunitions over a small area.

Their effect is devastating. No one can escape. They cause indiscriminate harm to anyone and anything in their area. Their failure rate makes cluster munitions particularly dangerous for civilians: 30% do not explode when they hit the ground. They wait patiently for their victims, who continue to be maimed or killed years and even decades after the war has ended.

It is astounding that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians and 40% of them are children, a proportion that is heart-stopping. In addition to the wounds they cause, cluster munitions contaminate arable land, kill livestock and destroy shelters, permanently impeding economic recovery and development.

In keeping with its humanitarian tradition and its initiatives in terms of disarmament and conventional arms control, Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. In doing so, it made a commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, sell, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. By signing the convention, Canada also made a commitment to destroy all cluster munitions in its possession within eight years.

Canada’s signing of the convention committed it to providing assistance to the victims of cluster munitions and the other states parties to the convention. It was also to take all the necessary legislative measures to have the text adopted in its domestic law, which is why we are here this evening. At the time, we had underlined the signing of the convention as progress in keeping with Canada’s humanitarian tradition and duty.

If Bill C-6 were nothing but that, we would pass it with no hesitation. However, as it always does, the Conservative government has distorted the spirit of the law. The text it has put before us today reneges on the commitment it made yesterday. As always happens with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. The details in this text are terrible. They include a loophole in the ban on using cluster munitions. The key word is “interoperability”. By including this word in the bill, even though we have signed the ban on cluster munitions, we could use them anyway. This means that the convention that we signed is undermined by the government’s action.

The testimony of those who negotiated the convention supports this view. The lead negotiator, Earl Turcotte, said in writing about this bill that “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said it was “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”.

Once again, Canada is content to be at the bottom of the class. That makes me sad for my country. However, experts, international figures and NDP members are not the only ones who are saying that this is a bad bill. On June 11, the defence minister at that time acknowledged that this was true. He said that the bill was not perfect and that it should be amended. It still has enormous deficiencies. It must be reviewed before it can be passed. I sincerely hope this will convince the Conservative members to listen for once to those who do not share their opinion rather than persisting in blindly passing anything and everything.

As for me, given the suffering of the victims of these abominable weapons, the destruction they cause and my duty toward humanity, I will refuse to support this bill, which, in its present form, contradicts and undermines the international treaty that it is supposed to implement and ratify.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the great philosopher Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

I heard the member for Edmonton say that we do not live in a perfect world and that we need to accept that these bombs may harm children and civilian members of society. He mentioned the war in Afghanistan, which is increasingly becoming part of our history instead of part of our future.

I want to ask my colleague a question: looking to the future, would it not be a better idea to ban these tools of war?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are quite obviously in favour of a complete and total ban on cluster munitions. If we consider wars in history and the very recent war in Afghanistan, they should serve as a reminder that we can truly build a peaceful future for our children. We will not move in that direction by acting in this manner and passing bills such as Bill C-6.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

Of course, we must go ahead with the Convention on Cluster Munitions. However, we must not distort what it represents. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is removing the very spirit of the convention.

Once again, Canada is lagging behind on the international level. The NDP wants Canada to be a world leader with regard to environmental agreements and agreements that aim at ensuring peace and justice throughout the world. In this regard, 113 countries have already signed the convention and 84 have ratified it. What a number of countries deplore is that we are now undermining the convention to the point where it is being distorted. We are becoming one of the worst countries signing the convention, and the convention no longer means anything.

What does my hon. colleague think about the elements distorting the convention, such as clause 11, which opens the door to further use of cluster munitions, rather than protecting the victims, who are often civilians, as my colleague so rightly said?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is very clear that signing the convention was necessary and important. At that time, we took a step in the right direction.

Today, we want to ratify the convention by means of Bill C-6. My colleague mentioned clause 11. In this regard, the fact that our soldiers will themselves be complicit one way or another in using cluster munitions is a notable and disastrous step backwards. It will do nothing to reduce the number of deaths or to prevent children from playing with cluster munitions and being killed, maimed or wounded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House again.

Does my colleague believe it is possible to improve Bill C-6? Does she agree that we now have an opportunity to improve it?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I think that improving the bill means removing clause 11, purely and simply. If we really want to respect the spirit and the letter of the convention, that is what we have to do. We still have an opportunity to do it, and I encourage the government to take this path.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is an important bill that will significantly impact future international conflicts and Canada's role in them.

My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that the bill contains some major flaws, unfortunately. If it is passed in its present form, we will have signed the convention in invisible ink, because we will in fact not be adhering to the letter of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In many parts of the world, the Conservative bill to implement the convention is considered to be the weakest one and, quite honestly, the worst one.

The bill is very problematic, which is why it is essential that we amend it. As my colleagues have already stated, we will only be able to support it if it is amended. As it currently stands, the bill undermines the spirit in which the convention was drafted as well as its intent, namely the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. Tragically, those who have no stake in conflicts, civilians, far too often become the unfortunate victims of these dangerous weapons.

We have worked very hard with Canadian and international civil society groups to convince the government to ban the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. The bill is still riddled with several dangerous and unnecessary legal gaps. These would allow Canadian soldiers to come into contact with highly dangerous and lethal cluster munitions and even use them. Their projectiles can unfortunately hit civilian populations.

The NDP will keep pressuring the Conservatives to amend this bill, so that Canada can at least be recognized as a humanitarian country, a humanist one, and a leader when it comes to promoting peace and protecting civilians.

Canada used to have a better reputation on the international stage. Recently, under the Conservative government, we have lost opportunities to maintain and even enhance our country's reputation. For example, Canada was the first and only country to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. We backed away from our responsibility to protect our environment and our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All this tarnishes our reputation. Many experts and witnesses have said that of all bills created by the signatories to the convention, Canada's is the weakest.

I hope that the Conservatives will have the diligence and open-mindedness to accept the amendments put forward in good faith, so that the convention can be ratified. Canada will then be party to a convention aimed at improving the well-being of civilians and children, who are often victims of cluster munitions.

Unfortunately, Canada managed to negotiate, in the final text of the convention, the inclusion of an article allowing for ongoing military interoperability with states not party to the convention. That is a weakness.

What is worse is that Bill C-6 is not only about this article on interoperability. The main problem lies with clause 11, which proposes a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request that they be used by the armed forces of another country.

Obviously, such a provision does not respect the spirit of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Clause 11 makes it virtually impossible for the NDP to support the bill. That is why I am saying amendments will be required. The amendments that the NDP and other parties will propose will have to be accepted to bring the bill back on the right track and respect this very important convention.

During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP gave its support to Canadian and foreign civil organizations calling for the bill to be amended. Unfortunately, this legislation has other flaws, but that is the main one.

We want to fully support the development of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We want a treaty to implement such a ban, as stated in the convention. However, this bill does not fully implement the convention.

The NDP will not support the bill as it stands. In committee, we will work very hard with civil society groups to ensure that the amendments, which are logical and accepted by civil society and international groups, are also accepted by the Conservatives. We will then be able to support the bill. We must sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions because it is good and it goes in the right direction. However, the bill must also go in the same direction.

At this time, the best thing would be for the Conservatives to accept our proposed amendment to completely delete clause 11. I think this would allow us to have a perfect bill.

Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for the mine action program for Afghanistan at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He said:

In my opinion, the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to date.

He is a very significant figure in the negotiations, and he is saying that the proposed legislation is the worst. It does not satisfy Canada's obligations with respect to international humanitarian law. It does not protect vulnerable civilians in war-torn countries. In addition, it betrays the trust of the countries that negotiated the treaty in good faith. It also falls short of Canadians' expectations.

I could quote many other witnesses who made similar comments. The bill does not hold up and it does not comply with the convention. I am not the one saying it, the experts are. It absolutely needs to be amended.

I am reaching out to the Conservatives, and I hope that they will be open to amending this bill so that it honours the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out in his speech, the issue of cluster munitions is particularly tragic because the victims are often women and children. That is what we heard in committee when we were studying this bill.

My colleague also commented on the fact that the government has become the laughingstock of the international community when it comes to cluster munitions and the contents of Bill C-6.

Can my colleague talk about why clause 11 is so problematic? Does he think, like I do, that this clause should be taken out?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who is doing an excellent job. I believe that she sat on the committee and I am sure that she listened carefully to the experts, who clearly said that the bill in its current form does not comply with the convention.

To point out how dangerous these weapons are, I will repeat that 98% of the injuries caused by these cluster munitions were inflicted on civilians. That clearly shows why these weapons must be banned. These weapons are not really useful in war, but represent instead a danger to civilians, children, women and non-combatants.

That is why clause 11 is so dangerous. It allows us to shirk our obligation to not use these cluster munitions. We are saying that we will sign the convention, but that we will use these weapons anyway. We are not being honest if we sign the convention and keep clause 11.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the NDP always tries to work with the government in order to improve legislation. We have worked with groups in civil society to convince the government to come up with a common sense bill that prohibits Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions.

Can my colleague explain why we cannot support this bill if we leave legal voids? It is not enough to leave these legal voids; we must ban these bombs outright.