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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Before we move on to questions and comments, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 6, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Stephen Wallace, Secretary to the Governor General, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 6th day of November, 2014, at 4:30 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia Jaton

Deputy Secretary

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Message From the Senate

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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: Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined, and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.”

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined.” At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function.” He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principal duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our Constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously.”

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Agricultural Growth Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously NDP members are the only ones working in the House tonight. I am very proud of them.

I am very pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food. Before getting to the main part of my speech, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with my wonderful colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. We are all looking forward to hearing from him.

The bill before us today is another omnibus bill, courtesy of the Conservatives. This is no surprise. We have become accustomed to their way of doing things. However they introduced a refreshing change. Even though the bill amends nine different laws—all the amendments are contained in the same document—they did something very unusual. For once, they focused exclusively on agriculture and agri-food. They seem to have learned something from the previous omnibus bills. At least this time around they have not presented us with a host of amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the bill. It is an improvement and we hope the Conservatives will also improve the way they manage the proceedings in the House and the democratic process in Canada. However this will be the subject of another debate.

I will go back to bill C-18. This bill deals with various issues, from plant breeders' protection to the reinforcement of border security mechanisms, as well as increased access to the advance payments program. Therefore, this bill deals with several issues that are important to our farmers and, by extension, to our fellow citizens. This is why the NDP will support bill C-18 at second reading.

It is important to us that this bill be examined in detail. Indeed, even though we support some measures included in the bill, we believe that they should be studied in depth, as if often the case when the Conservatives introduce an omnibus bill, regardless of what they want Canadians to believe. Various experts have already given their opinion on this and are calling for amendments. The NDP thinks that we should take the time we need to hear them. We must invite experts who wish to speak on the issues included in bill C-18. As parliamentarians, we must also listen to the concerns of the farmers in our ridings to try and come up with the best bill possible.

As we all know, it is simply not in the Conservatives' DNA to collaborate, to negotiate and to look for improvements. Still, we hope that some of that may happen if the bill is sent to committee. This bill needs to benefit all farmers and producers, as well as all Canadians.

As I said, the NDP supports parts of the bill. A few provisions address the concerns of the people from my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. We are in a rural area with numerous family farms, spread over the Portneuf RCM, the Jacques-Cartier RCM, and the town of Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures.

Constituents and producers often contact me to discuss agricultural issues. Access to funding is a challenge, as is probably the case in many parts of the country. I am sure that everyone in the House who represents a rural riding hears similar complaints from their constituents.

It is good to know, then, that Bill C-18 improves access to the advance payments program. This would make it easier for producers to access credit through cash advances. Accordingly, producers would be better able to meet all their financial obligations throughout the year, while improving their access to cash. New credit options would also be available to producers whose farm is not their main source of income to support their families.

All of these important changes address my constituents' concerns. However, as I mentioned at the outset, we are dealing yet again with an omnibus bill.

Some of the measures it contains warrant some reworking. They would benefit from expert advice from people who really know the field and work in it every day. That is why we would like to refer the bill to committee. We would like to take the time to do the work we were elected to the House of Commons to do.

There is one problem that deserves to be revisited that I would like to see studied in committee. I am talking about the fact that this bill gives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food more discretionary powers.

In fact, if passed as is, Bill C-18 would allow the minister to change various provisions of the bill without having to go through the House. He would not need approval from parliamentarians from all the parties. He could simply do it all by regulation. We see that provision quite often in Conservative bills. Frankly, this provision is a concern for the NDP.

This government has shown us many times that we cannot trust it. Here again, it is asking us to give it carte blanche, to give carte blanche to the minister who was at the helm during the XL Foods crisis, the minister who allowed major cuts at the Food Inspection Agency and who allowed the number of inspectors to be cut. The inspectors' jobs are to ensure the health of Canadians, to ensure that we all have access to high-quality food that is not contaminated. It is under this minister that the lives of hundreds and thousands of Canadians were put at risk during the XL Foods crisis. That caused panic here because the government was unable to guarantee the Food Inspection Agency the necessary resources to allow it to do its job properly.

Here again, with the bill before us, we are being asked to trust a minister who has shown his incompetence more than once. Frankly, this needs to be studied in committee again. We need to hear from experts on this aspect of the bill and various other aspects that are controversial and should be improved. We are not saying that we want this bill to be withdrawn completely or that it should never be passed. We are asking the government to show good faith and agree to work with members of the other parties. We also represent farmers, people who are familiar with the problems addressed in the bill, people who deserve to be heard as well as taken into consideration. They should be reflected in the bill that is passed in the House. If we pass Bill C-18 in its current form, that will not be the case.

Personally, when I travel through my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, no one tells me that ministers in the Conservative government should have more discretionary powers because they trust the government. I never hear that in my riding. Quite honestly, most of the time I hear how anxious people are for 2015 to come, so we can be rid of this government.

Aside from that, I have had the opportunity to meet with people from my riding and from ridings across Quebec and Canada. Canadians are worried about the decisions this government is making. It often makes unilateral decisions that do not leave room for opposition or constructive suggestions from the opposition. We know that our job is not simply to criticize. We also suggest solutions and improvements. That generally happens in committee and in the House when we participate in debates that no other parties participate in. We understand our job as MPs. I think it is unfortunate that the Conservatives take their jobs for granted. They do not feel the need to rise and defend their constituents. We saw that with the debate on Bill C-6, when all we heard was yelling from backbench MPs and the same question repeated over and over by the same hon. member on the other side. I strongly suspect that Bill C-18 will only be debated by New Democrat members who care about protecting Canadians and who want to ensure that we all have access to good quality food.

We are the only party that has proposed a global strategy to address the challenges facing farmers and food safety. No other party in the House has addressed this issue. The NDP's objective is to ensure that we can promote sustainable farming communities, support local agriculture, promote safety and transparency in the food protection system and make healthy food accessible to all Canadians.

That is what we want to accomplish here, and that is what we want to accomplish in trying to improve Bill C-18.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He mentioned that the exceptions went too far when it comes to Bill C-6. They are a clear breach of Canada's international obligations. In any case, when we sign a convention and the bill to ratify it is completely inconsistent with the content of that same convention, as it has been pointed out, it is impossible to have any credibility internationally. What does my colleague think about that?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak, for a few moments at least, to Bill C-6.

Let me say how proud I am to be part of a caucus whose members have been prepared to stand up, member after member, and voice their values, their principles, their convictions as they relate to an issue like this which affects people around the world. I am extraordinarily proud to be a member of this caucus.

It has been said before, but let me acknowledge the fact that this is a bill meant to implement or to ratify a treaty called the Convention on Cluster Munitions that was adopted in 2008. Here we are in 2014 and we are just now dealing with a piece of legislation to accomplish that, a piece of legislation, by the way, that was introduced in this House and now has had time allocation restrictions placed upon it.

This is extremely important. It is another treaty in a series of treaties followed along by the international treaty on land mines which is meant to deal with a weapon of war that not only has tremendous impact, death and maiming, at the time of its use, but subsequently as well. We have heard members of this caucus give examples of the problems that arise as a result of not being able to properly clear the fields of these ordnances and the destruction and damage that is caused to civilians, including children. That is what this treaty is all about: to end the use of a weapon like this that has been deemed to be reprehensible.

In fact, as the convention entered into force, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke of “not only the world's collective revulsion at these abhorrent weapons, but also the power of collaboration among governments, civil society and the United Nations to change attitudes and policies on a threat faced by all humankind.”

Subsequently, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said, “These weapons are a relic of the Cold War. They are a legacy that has to be eliminated because they increasingly won't work.”

Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams called the convention “the most important disarmament and humanitarian convention in over a decade.”

The point is, this treaty was adopted by 107 nations around the world, and we are now dealing with a piece of legislation that supposedly implements that treaty.

I want to echo what some of my colleagues have talked about in comparing clause 11 of Bill C-6 with article 21 of the treaty itself. I have looked at this and I want to talk about it for a second. Clause 11 in the bill creates so many exceptions that it goes well beyond article 21 of the treaty and basically completely undercuts the intention of the convention itself.

I will read what article 21 says. It is pretty straightforward:

Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention....

Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention....

It goes on to say:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

In other words, this is the interoperability clause. In other words, the concerns that members opposite have raised, that my goodness if we are at war working with our neighbours to the south, the United States, or other coalition partners, if we do not have the exemptions provided for in clause 11, we might suffer some legal consequences.

What article 21 does is it provides that comfort that, in fact, we commit to the principle and we commit to not allowing domestically the purchase, production or use of these weapons, but that if we are engaged and make our coalition partners aware of our abhorrence to this particular practice, that gives us some safety.

If we go back to the bill, to clause 11, what we will see in subclauses (1), (2) and (3) are the exceptions:

11.(1) Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under...in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bom2t by the armed forces of that state....

(c) acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet....

(2) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition....

(3) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to commit any act referred to....

My point is it is here in black and white what has been said by my colleagues and what has been said by experts who appeared at the foreign affairs committee, that in fact, clause 11 completely undercuts the tenets of the treaty itself.

If the government is going to get on its high horse and it is going to beat its chest about its adherence to the principles of the treaty, then it has to do that. It cannot expect to pass legislation that is contrary to that. That is the point we have been trying to make.

The production and use of these weapons is abhorrent. It has to be stopped. As a country, as a nation, as a participant in this world, we need to take strong action. We need to show leadership. This bill does not do that. That is the point we are trying to make.

Why I would even bother to explain that to a government that has been passing pieces of legislation one after the other that are being challenged and thrown out by the courts, I do not know. I guess I am just a bit naive. I think that if we take the time and if we point out the obvious nature of the flaws, the government will see it.

It is important that this House uphold the tenets of the treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We need to make sure that the legislation that ratifies it does that very thing. Bill C-6 does not do that, and that is why we are opposed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister across may have been quite busy in recent weeks denying the fact that he hung up on one of the most listened to radio programs in our country, recreating numbers that simply do not reflect reality when it comes to how many government sponsored refugees we have accepted from Syria, and coming up with excuses to reject yet more refugee claimants' health care applications.

However, just to inform the minister, he may want to familiarize himself with clause 11, which permits Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. This is clause 11 in Bill C-6, which is a bill that was put forward by his government. I would turn his passion right back at him and ask him how he, in good conscience, could stand as a minister of the crown and support a piece of legislation that flies in the face of the reputation Canadians demand from our country.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak in opposition to Bill C-6, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I would like to begin today by making it clear that history will note that in this debate, on such a critical issue, we have not seen one government member rise and make a speech in defence of an indefensible bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, a substantial amendment that was made in committee that would remove the ability of Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. However, we have still left far too much in that would weaken Canada's commitment to the cluster munitions treaty.

One of the places that I think is really offensive is that many of our allies have decided that, as an interpretative statement, in interpreting this part of the convention, subclause (c) of the operative section, that we are prohibited from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any activity prohibited by a state party under this convention. Many of our allies have concluded that investing in the production of cluster munitions would offend that section and have specifically taken action to ban investment. Bill C-6 would fail to do that.

We need to also focus on those places where it was so obvious we could have made changes, and refused to do so, to strengthen this legislation to make it fulfill the spirit of the convention.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick corrections, and then a question.

The NDP members have quoted a couple of times now the number of Canadian soldiers who were killed or injured. I forget which year they were referring to. The facts are: IEDs: yes; suicide bombers: yes; cluster munitions: no, none, zero, nada. They should quit saying that. It is just not true.

The member for Repentigny suggested that somehow Canadians had left little Canadian flags on cluster munitions that we used in Bosnia. We did not use cluster munitions in Bosnia, at all. That kind of comment disrespects the soldier who he purports to respect, because it is just not true and it is reprehensible, frankly.

The members quoted the land mine treaty a couple of times. Why is there a clause in the land mine treaty that has the same effect as clause 11 in Bill C-6? Why is it okay in the land mine treaty and it is not okay in Bill C-6?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address an important issue on Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The NDP opposes Bill C-6 in its current form on the grounds that it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is supposed to implement. Bills that implement international treaties should not work at cross purposes from the treaty itself.

The NDP attempted to amend the bill at committee, however, the Conservatives only allowed one small change, which would leave its weak support for the treaty in place.

Let us be clear about how serious this issue is and how dangerous cluster munitions are. Cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time and have a devastating impact on civilians that can last many years after the conflict has ended.

In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster bombs and other explosive devices.

Submunitions are very small, often similar in size to a D battery or a tennis ball. Furthermore, 30% remain unexploded and become, in fact, land mines. A single cluster bomb holds hundreds of submunitions, enough to cover an area the size of two to four football fields.

As members can see, these incredibly small devices, the size of a tennis ball, can project death and danger as far as four football fields away.

Canada participated actively in what was known as the “Oslo process” to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. There are 113 countries who have signed the convention and 84 have ratified.

The U.S., China and Russia did not participate in the process, and continue to have stockpiles of cluster munitions. Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article which would explicitly allow for continued military interoperability with non-party status, article 21.

Earl Turcotte was the former senior coordinator for Mine Action at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which are two very left-wing organizations. He was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate this convention. He also negotiated the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, the Ottawa convention. It is significant therefore that Mr. Turcotte resigned as a result of Canada's attempting to implement weak legislation.

Mr. Turcotte joined many Canadians and our party in advocating for stronger legislation. He said:

—the proposed...legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

Imagine that: Canada's bill to implement the international treaty is the worst of any country and an epic failure in so many ways.

Of course, Bill C-6 goes beyond interoperability. The main issue is actually clause 11 and its vague list of exceptions. According to the Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, clause 11 would authorize activities that would undermine the purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.

In its original form, the clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, process or transport cluster munitions whenever they were acting in conjunction with another country that was not a member of the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported Canadian and international civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely with the government in public and thorough direct dialogue to encourage improvements to the legislation. We were successful in persuading the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Clause 11 of Bill C-6 would go far beyond the language of article 21, and anyone from the international committee of the Red Cross to the Canadian responsible for drafting article 21 agrees on that. The Conservatives are alone in thinking that clause 11 is in line with the convention. The NDP amendment would have replaced this loophole language with an actual text of the convention. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions would be superficial at best.

We want to protect our soldiers from cluster munitions, to ensure that they are neither the users nor the victims. That objective is only possible if there is a full commitment by the entire country to the letter and the spirit of the treaty banning these weapons.

Until then, the convention allows interoperability. There is therefore no reason to use the overly broad wording proposed in Bill C-6.

Let me also cite the former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser. He 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.”

Indeed, Bill C-6 may even damage the convention as a whole by establishing an international precedent for opt-outs and exemptions. We need some good amendments to the bill to gain our support and the support of the international community.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what we have been doing here for the last two and a half hours if not actually debating back and forth and refuting points, one side to the other. That is fine. That is what is called debate. No one is condoning the use of cluster munitions. That is why we got rid of ours. We are in the process of getting rid of the last ones. That is why we do not allow any Canadian to use them, transport them, call for them, any of those things members intimate we are still doing.

My colleague brought up the land mine treaty. It was a good treaty that Canada signed and ratified. The land mine treaty has clauses that are the same as clause 11 in Bill C-6 for the same reason. We operate with allies, principally the Americans who have reasons of their own. We cannot dictate to the U.S. what its reasons and policies are, but it is reality. It is the reality Americans deal with and it is the reality we deal with, working with the Americans as we do on pretty much every single mission. It is no different than the land mine treaty.

One of the reasons we are insisting on clause 11 is because it is common sense and it is reality. That does not mean we condone the use of the weapons at all, but it is just reality.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start into my speech, I would like to recount a first-hand account on the use of cluster munitions.

I used cluster bombs on Iraqi forces in 1991. To this day, they are still killing the people we went to liberate. I have personal experience with these weapons. Fighting alongside Canada’s troops, I used cluster munitions in 1991 against Iraqi forces during the liberation of Kuwait. The target was a set of slit trenches. I released the two CBU-87s bombs, each containing hundreds of smaller “submunitions,” from a steep dive. I can still see the two huge doughnut-shaped “footprints” of the submunition explosions forming, slightly overlapping. With a series of flashes, the area around the target disappeared into dust and smoke, hiding the trenches and the last of the explosions from view. The blast area was equivalent to several soccer fields. I remember thinking it must have been hell on Earth to have been in the trench. All four of us in the formation were struck by the effect. Afterwards, someone wrote two words in the “remarks” column in the sheet authorizing the mission: “Nasty weapon.” But we didn’t know how nasty. We knew that some of the submunitions would not detonate, and that that would make it difficult for the enemy to operate in that area. But I had no idea that there would be nearly 200 casualties suffered by Kuwaitis — the people we were fighting to liberate — over the next 15 years. Or that two decades later, despite massive clearance efforts, unexploded submunitions would still be found. Or that by far the greatest proportion of recorded cluster munition casualties are civilian, many of them children.

That really sums up why we need to be passing this treaty and why we need to be ratifying it.

Also, Canada has a leading role to play in this. Sadly, the government is missing the opportunity by including things like clause 11 and working in the loopholes in the original convention that would allow for laggards to continue to operate and use these munitions and for Canada to stand idly by.

As we have heard from other speakers this evening, New Democrats fully supported the creation of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. That treaty or convention has been signed by 113 countries and has been ratified by 84. Supposedly, this bill is meant to represent Canada's ratification of the convention, but this bill undermines that convention. With this bill the government is trying to introduce a major loophole that will make Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions superficial at best.

The problem is that Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Then, in developing this legislation, the government added clause 11, which establishes an extremely broad list of exemptions. This clause permitted Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, and transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention and, worse still, to request the use of cluster munitions by other countries.

The International Committee of the Red Cross commented about this particular part of the legislation saying that section 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.

The NDP members fought hard at committee to make changes to this clause and other sections of the bill, but were only successful in getting the Conservatives to formerly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. However, we will take every little win on this kind of legislation that would limit the contact that our soldiers might come into with respect to cluster munitions and other weapons that we find reprehensible and heinous to use.

Like so many times before, the government has been unwilling to listen to many opposition amendments simply because the ideas did not come from it. This is a government that refused to correct grammar in another bill because it came from the opposition, forcing the change to be made at the Senate and then brought back here, wasting all of our valuable time and energy.

Of course other loopholes remain. Without amendments to rectify these loopholes, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions would be superficial at best. In fact, it may even damage the convention as a whole by establishing an international precedent for opting out and exemption. The legislation to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world, so we are not leading, we are trailing behind other countries in this area.

As a couple of my colleagues have mentioned, Earl Turcotte, a former senior coordinator from mine action at DFAIT, said about Bill C-6:

...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

I wonder if maybe that quote is why no member of the government is willing to get up and defend this legislation. Then we would have the opportunity to ask them questions about what he said about how this legislation would not meet our obligations under international and humanitarian law and that it would fail to protect civilians in war-torn countries.

All night long it has been New Democrats getting up and the Conservatives making snide remarks and talking about our ideals and making fun of pacifism and peacekeeping, which was a Canadian invention. The incredulous comments just continue without abating. The Conservatives are not willing to get up and defend this legislation. It is really an impressive thing when a government is not willing to stand up and defend its own decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to return to the heart of the issue before us tonight, namely Bill C-6, and ask my colleague to comment on the position of Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada. He had this to say about the bill:

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.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a large area—one approximately the size of a football field, or 100 square metres—in a very short period of time. They have a devastating impact on civilians, and that impact can last many years after a conflict has ended.

How many countries have had to have cleanup operations after a conflict? Unfortunately, not everything can be removed. Some cluster munitions remain, and it is usually civilians who pay the price. Children are often drawn to the submunitions, which are about the size of a golf ball, cylindrical and eye-catching. Many children pay the price, often with their life.

We know how devastating and inconspicuous these landmines can be for the civilian population. Unfortunately, they are extremely difficult to detect. They can be as small as a golf ball, and they are often very difficult to defuse. Thirty per cent of these unexploded submunitions become the equivalent of land mines.

They have inflicted terrible damage during conflicts around the world. They have mutilated and killed children and adults. Fully 98% of all cluster bomb casualties have been civilians.

Is this the kind of international leadership that Canada should take with respect to land mines and cluster bombs? Not at all. Canadians took a stand on this issue long ago, but in this case, the Conservatives are going against what Canadians want.

Canada participated actively in the Oslo process that led to the creation of a convention to ban cluster bombs. People have been wanting to get rid of these weapons for a very long time. Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely known as the weakest position of all of the countries that ratified the convention and passed legislation on the issue. It goes against the spirit of the convention.

As written, this bill is less binding than any other law passed by the countries that ratified the convention. One hundred and thirteen countries signed the convention and 84 have ratified it to date. Once again, instead of showing leadership, the Conservative government is bringing up the rear and seems bent on undermining the impact of the convention.

Earl Turcotte, former senior program coordinater for mine action at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, led the Canadian delegation that negotiated this convention. Here is what Mr. Turcotte said about the government's bill:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

There are several loopholes in this bill, and if they are not closed, Canada's commitment to ending the use of cluster munitions will be superficial at best. Indeed, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it may even work against the convention on an international level, as Earl Turcotte warned.

However, we should not be surprised by the direction that the Conservatives are taking in terms of arms control when we consider their general reluctance to take action on this file. In fact, they refused to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed by all our NATO allies, and it relaxed restrictions on arms exports. This attitude is contrary to the will and values of Canadians.

The bill was criticized by many experts and by those who firmly believe that we must rid the world of cluster munitions. Criticism was mainly levelled at clause 11. This clause authorizes the Canadian Forces to be present in a theatre of operations where cluster munitions are used.

This flies in the face of what we did in the case of the Ottawa treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. It stipulated that if we were to find ourselves in a theatre of operations alongside any other country that had not signed the Ottawa treaty, we could not participate in combined operations with the troops of that country if they were using such weapons.

This bill has a flaw, a loophole, that basically says that we can be in a theatre of operations when one of our allies is using these munitions. That is completely unacceptable, and it goes against the spirit of the convention.

The government's objective is not to ratify or implement this convention. With the results we see, its objective is to undermine or weaken the convention. It also undermines Canada' role as a world leader and our commitment to ban this terrible weapon.

In the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP offered its support to Canadian and foreign civilian organizations that were calling for this bill to be amended. We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government, and we managed to persuade it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. In concrete terms, that means that Canadian soldiers may not directly use this type of weapon but that they may take part in operations and be on the ground where those weapons have been used.

How can the government prohibit their direct use by the Canadian Forces, on the one hand, and let our forces take part in joint operations with partners who use this kind of weapon, on the other? Canada expressly prohibited the involvement of its armed forces in the case of anti-personnel mines. We could therefore implement the same kind of prohibition for this type of weapon. This is a 180-degree change from the position we held on anti-personnel mines.

If the government does not decide to withdraw clause 11 with the amendment at report stage, we will unfortunately be forced to vote against the bill. That would be unfortunate, but we would have no choice.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a strange atmosphere in which to start my speech on Bill C-6 but I will jump right into it anyway. I first want to preface my remarks by reassuring my colleagues opposite that I have a clear understanding of the issue here and that I wrote my speech myself.

I hope that this will not lead my colleagues opposite, such as the member for Ottawa—Orléans, to make disrespectful remarks. I hope I will not hear any more such comments when I finish my speech. Frankly, I thought that debates in the House of Commons were supposed to be more courteous. I find such comments to be far beneath an experienced member like him, who has been in the House for years and who once held the position of Speaker.

In any case, let me get back to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This is a very important debate in the House, and that is why the NDP wants to take the time to debate the bill properly.

I have heard many comments from the Conservative backbenchers, but not one member has risen to actively participate in this debate in the House. That is a terrible shame. I guess they think they have done enough to earn their salaries.

The NDP thinks it is important to be the voice of the people who we represent and who sent us to the House to debate issues that are important to them, including international policy issues. A Conservative member said that he had made a speech just a few days ago. That is extraordinary. One speech in all the time that was allocated to members of the governing party. That really is unfortunate.

Bill C-6 seeks to finally implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This is an issue that has been the subject of international debate for many years now. The convention in question is the result of negotiations between over 100 countries as part of the Oslo process, which came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines.

Although Canada became one of the 113 signatories to the convention on December 3, 2008, the convention has yet to be ratified by our Parliament. This is what Bill C-6 is attempting to do, in its clumsy way. Cluster munitions have a devastating and direct impact on civilian populations, as the NDP has already discussed at length.

The Conservatives have told us repeatedly that we need these weapons to defend our military personnel during international operations. They seem to forget that 98% of the time, victims of cluster munitions are civilians. Not only are they civilians, but many victims are children. About 30% of submunitions fail to explode and remain on the ground. Children are attracted to these small, sometimes brightly coloured objects and pick them up. Submunitions then function just like land mines.

Canada has clearly stated its opposition to the use of land mines. However, the Conservative government will not hear of prohibiting the use of cluster munitions, which end up acting just like land mines. Unexploded submunitions remain on the ground for years. They keep on claiming victims long after the fighting is over.

Ratifying this convention is very important to Canada. People I talk to are concerned about these types of issues, and they would like to see Canada take a leadership position on the world stage.

Unfortunately, once again the Conservatives are dropping the ball. The bill in its current form does not at all live up to the mission of the convention that was negotiated.

In fact, the bill presented to us by the Conservatives contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. It is very contradictory, and that is what we are trying to shed light on in this debate, which apparently is too long for the Conservatives, but is essential for the NDP. This is a complex issue. We must take our time with it. We must give this bill the time it deserves. It has already gone through committee. The NDP worked with the government to try to improve the bill. However, there is still work to be done.

In its current form, Bill C-6 is still today being criticized by many experts and international players as the weakest and worst bill in the world for ratifying the Convention on Cluster Munitions. There is nothing to be proud of—quite the contrary.

The major problem is that the Conservatives did everything to ensure that this bill included a lot of legal loopholes, which seem unnecessary and dangerous to us. That is what the NDP focused its efforts on in committee and continues to focus on.

We think the main flaw in the bill is clause 11, which is still included. That clause would allow Canadian soldiers to acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a party to the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country. Clearly, the government made only half an effort to control the use of these weapons. We think that is not enough.

We nevertheless managed to make one amendment to the bill at committee stage. The NDP's efforts were rewarded. The government finally admitted that it would not necessarily be a good idea to expressly allow Canadian soldiers to use cluster munitions. However, it is a rather small victory considering all the work that remains to be done.

If no further changes are made to the bill at the stage it has reached, although amendments could still be made, the bill could undermine the international implementation of the convention by creating dangerous precedents that other countries could rely on. The exemptions currently found in the bill could be invoked by other countries that want to justify keeping or even using the weapons in their arsenals. That is what most of the international community and the NDP are trying to avoid. Unfortunately, once again, Canada was the black sheep and tried to do everything it could to undermine the essence of the convention. It is really too bad, but we still can do the right thing, even if that is not the Conservatives' way.

This is not the first time that they have watered down the principles and values dear to Canadians on the international stage. I could talk about environmental treaties, such as the Kyoto protocol, which are not being honoured. An even more striking example is the 2009 scandal that broke over the transfer of Afghan detainees. We learned that in 2006-07, the Conservative government had expressly approved the transfer of Afghan detainees to prisons where there was a significant risk that they would be tortured.

Canada is a signatory to the Geneva convention. Before the arrival of the Conservative government, we were strongly opposed to torture. For various reasons, the Conservatives allowed violations of the values so dear to Canadians and permitted the transfer of Afghan detainees to prisons where they were tortured.

It is obvious that the Conservatives do not care about the values and principles that matter to Canadians. Earlier, I heard them going on about how Canada is not a pacifist country. That is unbelievable. They need a history lesson. I will not give it to them now, since I do not think they would listen, which is too bad. Regardless, as I just showed, the Conservatives are once again flouting the values and principles that matter to Canadians.

We are not finished. The NDP will continue to work with the government to amend the bill to ensure that it complies with the convention that has been negotiated and ratified by more than 80 countries so far. We simply need to remove clause 11. That is what we are asking for. I hope that the government will finally listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is here tonight to discuss Bill C-6, a bill of some import. We would like to discuss it to impress upon the members opposite that some of its clauses are contradictory. We wish to continue discussing it.

I would like for cooler heads to prevail and for members to stop getting riled up and totally distorting the message we wish to send Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side talk about wanting to hear speeches from this side. We did give speeches. Last time, I gave one and a number of other members gave them as well. The opposition has complained about not having enough time to speak. Well, we are giving them five or six hours, so they can speak their little hearts out.

We can go back and forth like this, and that is great, I have no problem with that. I want to pick up on something the member said about how a minority of people elected this government to a majority government. That is true, 62% of Canadians did not vote Conservative in the last election, 72% did not vote NDP, 82% did not vote Liberal, and 95%, plus or minus, did not vote Green or Bloc.

Of the majority governments we have had in Canada, five in our entire history had been elected with more than 50% of the popular vote. Trudeau never had one. Chrétien never had one. Let us put that part aside.

Getting back to the issue of Bill C-6, the suggestion that this bill allows us to use, produce, acquire, transfer, or incite and encourage others to use cluster munitions is simply false. That is just not true. I wish the hon. member would not intimate that.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a comment. I find it unfortunate that a guillotine has been imposed to limit the time we have to speak to this bill. Is it because they do not want to work with us or for us to ask them questions? I find that truly regrettable. Who do people currently see discussing this bill on CPAC? The NDP. The other parties ask us questions.

I think it is important today to discuss the risks to which Canada is exposing its military personnel and millions of civilians around the world by passing Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Although this bill is supposed to support an international effort to get rid of an atrocious weapon, the bill that has been put before us could do precisely the opposite.

I will therefore speak to what the bill does, what it does not do and the consequences it would have. I am putting myself in the shoes of the people in the countries that receive these bombs that kill children or injure them for life. This is really disastrous.

Speaking of consequences, what happens when a cluster bomb explodes?

In Canada, we are lucky to live in peace, but we must not believe that we will never go through war. Other democracies before us have been through war. Just imagine for a moment what civilians go through during conflicts, which, by the way, rarely serve their interests.

As my colleagues said earlier, a bomb, not unlike the leaflet propaganda bombs that were used in days gone by, is dropped. However, instead of paper, hundreds of bomblets or submunitions no bigger than a D battery spread out over a more or less accurate target such as a landing strip or an armoured vehicle. It is said that cluster munitions are cheaper because they cover more territory in less time. In time, people are injured and die. There is therefore no need to send more. After the initial wave of explosions, roughly 30% of the unexploded submunitions remain and become de facto land mines that are still effective decades later. Think about this: when these bombs are dropped on a country, the child that might end up playing with them is not even born yet. He will be disabled for life. Civilians account for 98% of victims of cluster munitions. Half of them are children who mistake the colourful submunitions for a toy.

Would we want our children to mistake a bomblet for a toy? That is why I think we can never predict exactly what will happen once a cluster munition is dropped. All we know is that they tear flesh, break hearts and destroy communities with sadness.

I am taking the time to remind everyone what these weapons do because the Conservative government does not seem to understand. Officially, judging by its name, the bill should enable the implementation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Let us take a look at what this bill does and what it does not do.

According to the text of the convention signed by Canada on December 3, 2008, in Oslo:

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances:

a) To use anti-personnel mines;

b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines;

c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Does the bill that should, above all, fulfill these obligations to the international community pass the test?

According to Earl Turcotte, the former coordinator of mine action at DFAIT and the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, the answer is no. Mr. Turcotte said:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date. It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

I am not the one who said that; it was Earl Turcotte. He is the fellow who was hired to sign a real convention, one that was really binding on arms manufacturers. He is the fellow Canada sent to help bring peace to the world, which should be our objective as a pacifist country.

We therefore see here what this bill does not do. What does it do, then, if it does not fulfill the primary reason for its existence? To understand what the bill does, we have to look at a process that is not without interest. It is all proceeding as if the Conservative government had thrown a bomblet into the treaty negotiations.

The people in charge of the negotiations for Canada had to bargain hard to have article 26 of the convention, on the interoperability of the signatory countries, included. Essentially, because China, Russia and the United States refuse to sign, it would be hard not to do business with them, is that not so? The people in place at the time of the negotiations succeeded in having that article accepted for Canada, but they are surprised to see, today, that the spirit of the convention is undermined by clause 11 of the bill introduced to address article 26, which Canada requested.

The bomblet that is clause 11 permits Canadian troops to use, obtain, possess or transport cluster munitions in the course of joint operations with another country that is not a party to the convention and to request the use of cluster munitions by the armed forces of another country. We will be able to say that we do not make them, but our troops are going to be transporting them.

The Conservative government has thus destroyed the spirit of the convention for good. Flesh will be ripped apart, hearts will be broken and communities will be torn by grief. I would have liked to see a little more leadership on the part of this government. I would have liked our colleagues across the aisle to make speeches, and I would have liked to be able to ask them questions and get more information. I expected a lot more leadership. I am certain that the people of Joliette, whom I represent, have had enough of learning that under the Conservatives, Canada has withdrawn from important international treaties like the Kyoto protocol, which people talk to me about when I go door to door, and is going so far as to sabotage peace efforts at the international level.

When the Conservatives behave in this manner, they show the entire world their true colours, colours that we do not share. On behalf of Joliette and all of Canada, I would like to send this message to the rest of the world: those are not our colours. They are the colours of a minority that obtained a majority in the House of Commons and, for that reason, that minority believes that it is leading on behalf of the majority. Let us hope that the government will agree to do the right thing by amending its bill at third reading. In my opinion, that is the only thing to do for Canada, for its international reputation and for the civilian victims in countries at war.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are having too much fun here tonight, in a manner.

This is not about backpacking around Europe with a flag on one's back. I think the people we represent would not be very proud if we allowed Canadian soldiers to die on the battlefield because we refused help from an ally because we did not like something they were doing. I know how my constituents would feel about that and how the people I know in uniform would feel about that.

I want to take my colleague up on something he said. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to me that he was suggesting that somehow the way Bill C-6 is written is permitting Canadians to use cluster munitions. Of course, it is exactly the opposite. We do not use, possess, store, or permit the use by Canadian Forces of cluster munitions ever, anywhere, any time. I would like him to clarify that. I hope he did not suggest that. If he did, I would ask him to clarify that, because it is simply not the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I am always pleased to speak about foreign affairs issues.

As federal legislators, we often deal with issues that do not always have a direct impact on our constituents. Like many of my colleagues, I am sure, I have the honour of representing a riding where people are very concerned about what is happening with regard to different issues and the way Canada works on the international stage. Even though these issues do not affect them directly, the reputation that Canada has and the way we work are still very important to them. That is the main reason why I am rising today.

I have been listening to this evening's debate, and one of the arguments the Conservative government is using is that it cannot guarantee that the Americans will not use cluster munitions given that they have not signed on to this convention. That is not the issue. To say that we could never stop them—and that there is therefore no problem having a bill ratify a convention, even if the bill is full of flaws that will undermine that same convention—is to miss the point.

The point is to show leadership on the world stage. That is, or I should say was—past tense—Canada's reputation on the world stage. Unfortunately, that is a problem with the Conservative government. We are hearing that again in the arguments this evening. They are saying that it is idealistic and there is nothing they can do about it. That is an excuse for not seeing things through and having a more complete bill that would be supported by the various stakeholders we heard in committee.

There is a term for that in international relations. It is called the tragedy of the commons. The example often used to illustrate the tragedy of the commons in international relations is the environment. If we look at environmental issues, when the different players negotiate on the world stage, they often say that they do not want to make efforts to reduce greenhouse gases because developing countries such as China, for example, will not adhere to the same restrictions that we do and this will put us at a competitive disadvantage. At the end of the day, if we always fall back on those arguments, then that is the tragedy of the commons. In other words, no one does anything.

That is precisely the problem with this bill and with the Conservative government's arguments. The United States is a big and powerful country and we are allies. No one is saying that we will stop working with the U.S. when the government ratifies the convention and working sometimes with the U.S. in military interventions. That being said, that does not stop us from seeing things through and truly supporting what is in the convention with a more complete bill.

I will elaborate a bit for those who may not have followed the entire debate. We are talking about the famous clause 11, which has come up often in the debate. A number of my colleagues have talked about it. Clause 11 would allow Canadian soldiers to use these munitions even though we signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. If our soldiers were on a mission with countries that have not ratified the convention, we would refer to the concept of interoperability.

It was at Canada's insistence that this concept was included in the convention despite opposition from several countries that participated in the negotiations. This concept is a little strange and very contradictory. One of my colleagues talked about contradiction earlier.This is an extremely important term. In principle, Canada sits around a table and says that it agrees with principles and that it wants to ratify a convention. Then the government comes back to the House of Commons with a bill that puts all this in place and makes our laws conform to the undertakings of this international agreement. However, we cannot really support these principles.

If we took this matter seriously, the bill would instead state that if we were to participate in a military mission with allies such as the Americans, who continue to use these weapons, the Americans could do whatever they wanted, but we would prohibit the use of these weapons by Canadian soldiers. In that way, we would fully honour the principles set out in this convention.

Unfortunately, that is not what this bill proposes, and that is what we are speaking out against. The members opposite do not seem to understand that.

For example, I have listened to my colleague from Ottawa Centre ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs many questions about the Arms Trade Treaty, among other things. The minister talks about not wanting to punish so-called law-abiding citizens, as though we were debating the long gun registry when we are talking about an international treaty. It is really interesting, because we realize that the government's commitment to our obligations is dwindling, and this bill is an unfortunate example of that.

I listened to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta talk about a time when Americans felt safe and comfortable when they put a Canadian flag on their backpack and travelled in certain regions and countries because of the respect the international community had for Canada. I found that interesting.

All is not lost, but I dare say we can do better. That is what we are asking of the government today, as we did in committee. This afternoon the minister repeatedly said that an amendment had been accepted; however, the basic issue has not been corrected. That is why we cannot support this bill.

That is very disappointing because Canada built a reputation for itself through hard work and compromise, and that reputation brought together various countries that were not always on the same wavelength. Now, instead of continuing with that same work, Canada is taking a very strong stand. That is important, but the problem is that Canada is not standing firm on the right things. We need to take a firm stand by showing leadership and initiative, not by being closed-minded.

In other words, the Conservatives show up in the House, raise their hands and say this is too idealistic. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton Centre say that it is like Alice in Wonderland. For many Canadians—in fact, the vast majority—showing leadership on the international stage is not idealistic; it is part of our Canadian identity.

Showing leadership means leading by example. Sometimes, that means making difficult decisions and working with allies who do not work the way we do. It also means, as my colleague said, that we may sometimes have to put some of our soldiers in a difficult position, knowing that their American counterparts are using weapons we prohibit.

However, I think that the people we represent, the international community and our military personnel would be very proud to see us take a firm stand and deliver on the commitments made during negotiations with other countries.

To bring this full circle, I would like to come back to the idea of the tragedy of the commons, or waiting for others to act, which unfortunately is far too often the case on the international stage. Countries are often too afraid to be at the forefront, making difficult decisions and what could be seen as forward-thinking commitments. That is not how Canada acted in the past, and that is not how it should be acting today.

We hope that the government will come to its senses as a result of the speeches that have been made today. When we debated this bill after it was introduced, the media and stakeholders like the Red Cross raised the same concerns as the NDP.

It has to be serious, because the Red Cross generally stays out of this kind of political debate. That speaks volumes.

I know that my time is up, but I think that I got our idea across. I hope that this will enlighten some government members.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to stand in the House to join my colleagues in debating the bill. I am deeply troubled that the government moved to limit debate on the bill. I am deeply troubled that apart from some questions which have been useful, I am not seeing colleagues in the Conservative Party rising to speak to this. If it is so wise to blow a cannon-ball through this treaty, then those members should stand and defend why they should do that.

Bill C-6 allegedly is an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but absent the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has brought forward, it will not be a bill to ban the use of cluster munitions. I will speak to that.

As my colleagues have spoken to, in order for Canada to ratify an international convention, the government of the day must table a bill in the House to enact legislation which brings into force in this country the terms of the treaty. As has been mentioned, Canada actually signed this treaty in 2008, and has waited until now to bring a final conclusion to the legislation that it has brought forward.

It is regrettable that our country, unlike Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and most of the European nations, has chosen not to take the treaty and enact it in legislation. Conservatives have taken this treaty and they have blown a cannon-ball through it. Canada has made a choice. Canada has signed the treaty, and it could choose not to ratify the treaty.

We heard questions today asking about our allies. The only ally that Conservatives have talked about is the United States. The whole point of the treaty was to deter nations from continuing to produce and use cluster munitions. What possible excuse can there be, if we only want to sort of ratify the treaty because we like to hang out with countries that do not respect the treaty? I do not think that is much of an incentive, to those who have not yet signed or ratified, to do the proper thing.

What is the significance of the treaty? What are cluster bombs? We have talked a lot about that tonight. These are explosive weapons that release many smaller submunitions. What is particularly dangerous about these—as if they do not cause enough damage and harm and maiming of families and children in the course of a war—is that, like land mines, many are left behind unexploded. Apparently they are very brightly coloured. They are very attractive to children, and a lot of children become maimed.

There has been a lot of talk in the House of late about how much we care about the plight of families suffering through this debacle in Syria. Let me share what has gone on in Syria with cluster bombs. The Syrian army, in Aleppo, has been issuing cluster bombs. What has happened is that a little boy of seven, shaking like a leaf, is seen moaning, with lacerations to his abdomen and legs. Three-year-old brother Nizar's body was ready for burial. Six-year old Mustafa Ali was lying in a bed with shrapnel injuries to his head, neck, and shoulders. There was a nine-year-old boy, with a nasty shrapnel injury to his left leg. These stories go on and on. This is what these weapons do. They are reprehensible.

To the credit of the nations around the world, at one time also including our nation, in 2008, they agreed to come together and draft and implement a convention through a treaty to ban the use of these reprehensible weapons.

Who supports its ratification in whole? The Secretary General of the United Nations supports it. He has expressed increasing concern about the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons, particularly when used in densely populated areas. The International Committee of the Red Cross has spoken out with great concern regarding the proposed legislation by the Canadian government to provide this major exemption. There are others: the British Action on Armed Violence, the International Network on Explosive Weapons, and Amnesty International.

Who has opposed the cluster bombs treaty? Well, it is the nations who have been producing or stockpiling significant quantities of cluster munitions. Those are the ones who are opposed to the convention and have not stepped forward either to sign or ratify it, and they include China, Russia, and the United States, reprehensibly.

In response to the remonstrations by the U.S., Canada and this group of nations have brought forward this treaty. However, now, Canada is introducing a loophole. A number of the parties that I have mentioned are concerned about Canada's move. They are suggesting that this move by Canada to include clause 11 may end up dismantling the effect of this treaty.

Who has criticized Bill C-6?

My colleagues have mentioned the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, and I will read what he has to say:

In a rare public attack, the former prime minister has lashed out at Canada for what he says is “a lack of commitment to an international treaty to ban deadly cluster munitions.” He has accused the current government of departing from Canada's traditional international leadership, and said, “Canada used to be in the forefront internationally in leading the world in good directions”. He then said that Canada cannot claim to have banned cluster bombs when it proposes to allow its military to help others to use the weapons.

That is a good point.

A second party who has spoken very strongly against Bill C-6 is one who should be very worrisome to Canadians, and that is Earl Turcotte.

Who is Earl Turcotte? He was the senior coordinator for the Conservative government's Department of Foreign Affairs in negotiating the treaty. He led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the convention. He resigned, given the Conservative government's position on this section, which essentially blows a cannon-ball through the convention.

I do not think I have time to mention all that Mr. Turcotte has said, but I can assure members that he has been very strong in his admonitions. He said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention...” He has called for the bill to be strengthened. He said that, “The innocent victims of cluster munitions deserve nothing less.” I tend to agree.

The Red Cross has said clearly that if clause 11 stands in the bill at passage, it could have the effect of undermining the entire treaty. The Government of Norway has also very strongly spoken against the bill.

Concerns have been expressed that unless clause 11, this wide exemption, is removed from Bill C-6, it could put Canadian Forces at risk, yet when we read the details of the bill, it is very hard to argue that.

I look forward to one of those members standing in this place tonight and giving us their argument on why this provision is needed in the treaty. No other nation who has ratified the convention has included this provision. Canada did not argue for this provision to be in the treaty. It is highly unusual for a nation that has signed and shown intent to ratify, to add a provision that would essentially undermine the treaty itself.

The treaty already allows for interoperability, so why do we need this additional provision? Surely it should be the obligation of our country, when we get into the fields of war, to look very closely at what our partners in those activities are doing.

What could be an appropriate action by Canada? Well, it would be the same as all of the others who have ratified this convention, which is to stand up and say that one shall not use cluster munitions.

The case that Canadian Forces could be at risk simply by the fact that they go into the field of war with a country such as the United States that still has a stockpile of the munitions, I do not believe is a sound argument. I have yet to see that argument.

If we are in the field of war with a country and it is using those cluster bombs, then shame on us. We should not be participating in that activity. We have signed on to this treaty, and we are professing that we are going to ratify it, which is supposed to do away with the use of these cluster bombs.

I fully support the NDP amendments, which would strike clause 11. That would then bring Canada in line with all of the other reputable nations of the world that have signed and ratified the treaty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to point out that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, has an enormous number of weaknesses. Today, in 2014, no one can really be unaware of all the damage and deaths caused by cluster munitions.

These days, it is children who are particularly the victims, and they will continue to be for years to come. It is therefore high time to take the necessary action to put an end to cluster munitions.

My colleague said that clause 11 presented a real problem in that it is contradictory. Could he pursue that line of thought further?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North.

This is the 77th or 78th use of time allocation by the government. Time allocation basically shuts down debate. The Conservatives do not want debate to happen in this House.

On this side of the House, the NDP is fully prepared to debate this bill, but there are no Conservatives getting up to speak to this very important bill that concerns Canada's reputation around the world. Yet speaker after speaker, NDP members are willing to debate in this House that we can actually repair some of the damage that has been done to our reputation over the last seven years by the government.

Before I get to the bill, which is an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, I must say that Canada had a great reputation around the world. We were viewed as peacemakers. We were viewed as a country that brought countries together. There was an opportunity for us to do that with this particular bill.

As the member pointed out, the Conservatives should not bring a bill into the House while crossing their fingers behind their backs. The Conservatives seem to be doing that not only with this bill, but with many bills. The Conservatives have been slapped by the Supreme Court a number of times in the past couple of years when it comes to the bills they are bringing forward in this House, as to whether they are actually constitutional and whether they respect our charter.

The Conservatives have their fingers crossed behind their backs, hoping nobody will notice it, but the NDP will ensure that Canadians know that the Conservatives are missing an opportunity to present Canada to the world at the level we were many years ago when we were respected around the world.

In the 40 or 50 years that the elections have been held for the Security Council, Canada has always rotated and had a seat on the Security Council. However, under this government, it is the first time we do not have anybody sitting on the UN Security Council.

This was an opportunity to show the world that we are serious when it comes to these kinds of munitions, cluster explosives that are very dangerous when they are used around the world. We have seen pictures from many countries of the damage these explosives do not only at the time they are dropped, but many years later.

When it came to drafting this particular convention, Canada played a role in bringing some of the countries together. The process came on the heels of another success we had, which was the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. This was an opportunity for us to again lead the world, but the Conservatives missed it.

Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for a country to use military interoperability with non-party states. It's article 11.

Bill C-6 goes beyond the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problem lies basically in clause 11, which establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. That is where the trouble is.

In the original form of the bill, the clause permitted basically Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess, and/or transport cluster munitions whenever they are acting in conjunction with another country that is not a member of the convention, and to request the use of cluster munitions by another country.

At the foreign affairs committee, the NDP supported many Canadians, many experts and civil society groups in pushing for changes to the bill. We engaged closely. We like to work with the government when it comes to making legislation. That is the job of parliamentarians. When a bill gets to committee, we want to ensure that we work with the government to correct mistakes. We want to ensure that we correct mistakes not only in this particular legislation but in many other bills. We can work with the government and make this legislation better.

In many committees, not only does the NDP offer good ideas, but various professors, academics and experts in particular areas offer genuine, good advice to the government in order to improve legislation. A lot of times the government fails to consider that advice. In this case, we were able to persuade the government to formally prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. That is a minor improvement, but there is still an issue with clause 11.

This legislation contains many loopholes, and the government failed to close them. We, along with experts and civil society organizations, offered advice. We were all very vocal with respect to some of the changes that needed to be made, but again, the Conservatives failed to do that.

As it currently stands, Canada's legislation, Bill C-6, will be the weakest legislation of all the countries that have ratified the convention. Unfortunately the government, even though it is opposed to cluster munitions, fits into a broader pattern of weakness on arms control. The government has refused to join all NATO allies in signing the UN Arms Trade Treaty and has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

Canada had the opportunity to show the world that we are leaders when it comes to bringing peace to countries around the world. We had an opportunity here to lead worldwide, to show people that Canadians can provide peaceful societies around the world.

I will quote former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who said, “It is a pity that the current Canadian government”, that is the Conservative government, “in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.”

The Conservatives seem to have myopic vision. They cannot see that they could provide leadership to the whole world. Countries around the world are looking for leadership from Canadians, and this was an opportunity for us to provide that leadership.

A number of countries have not signed on to this convention, but that does not mean we cannot work with some of the other countries. Eighty-four countries have passed bills in their legislatures. There are 113 signatories to the convention. That is a lot of countries. Working with these countries we could help persuade the countries that have not signed on. This is where Canada should be providing leadership. It has been expected for many decades, for over a hundred years, for Canada to take the lead, to bring other countries together in a peaceful manner, yet over the last number of years we have seen especially the present Conservative government fail to provide that leadership.

I urge the government to live up to the letter of the convention. I urge it to make the changes that we are proposing in order to improve this legislation so we can bring countries together and have a peaceful, prosperous munitions-free world.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, because it is Canada's opportunity to show the community of nations that we are committed still to our role in the world that we established through the Ottawa process to deal with land mines and that on cluster munitions, we are prepared to implement the treaty, not just with a fingers-crossed-behind-our-back commitment but fully and in the spirit and letter of the treaty.

I agree with everything my hon. colleague said. I would ask him whether he does not agree that we should have implemented treaty language in Bill C-6.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst shares my views. In my 10-minute speech, I will touch upon several very valid points that he mentioned, and I will to add some others.

Today we are debating Bill C-6 at report stage. This bill has a good chance of being passed by the Canadian Parliament, whether we like it or not. The Conservatives reminded us over and over in their speeches why they insist on moving forward. I concede that some amendments were adopted in committee—a sort of compromise—but the reality is that the amendments do not go far enough to reassure the members of the NDP.

I would recall the figure I mentioned to my colleague earlier. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and another 112 wounded in Afghanistan by anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. Those figures terrify me.

Even if we in Canada decide not to use cluster munitions, we may become accomplices of less scrupulous countries. Some countries are less democratic, and certain elites govern and make decisions there. It terrifies me that some leaders and countries are deciding to go ahead with cluster munitions, because they exact a real human cost. I do not want to politicize this debate at all.

I wonder what would happen if, in the House of Commons today, we could hear from the families of those who did not return from combat because they were killed in situations of conflict by anti-personnel mines. I say anti-personnel mines because defective cluster munitions, weapons that lie undetonated in the ground, become anti-personnel mines.

Several of my NDP colleagues will be speaking from the heart this evening and saying how this bill raises serious concerns for them. We obviously hope the Conservative government will be reasonable and will want to amend the bill further, but I unfortunately doubt that will be the case.

It is my democratic right to represent my constituents. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I represent approximately 100,000 people. I would be lying if I said they had all contacted me in the past few days to give me their opinions. However, the people who elected me have the same social democratic values as I do.

My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, has one of the largest military bases in Canada, CFB Bagotville. It is home to 2 and 3 Wings, and it plays a very important strategic role in Canada. I am in favour of the Bagotville military base. I am in favour of the various missions that base carries out, both in our region and across our country. I am talking here about protecting our territory and providing assistance in exceptional situations.

I also agree that we should send Canadians, members of Canada’s armed forces, to disarm the world, in fact to protect us from a greater evil, if I may put it that way. We are aware that there are many countries, factions, opinions and ideologies on earth. Some parts of the world are in constant conflict.

I hope the Canadian government does not forget its peacekeeping role going forward. I think that is the best thing we can offer to countries currently in conflict and to future generations of Canadians.

Going back to cluster munitions, these weapons release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. They have devastating effects on civilians that can last for many years after a conflict is over.

Canada played an active part in the Oslo process, which led to an agreement designed to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process was triggered in order to take advantage of the success of the Ottawa convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Unfortunately, the United States, China and Russia did not take part in the process and are still stockpiling cluster munitions. That is a major concern.

Despite strong opposition by most signatory states and non-governmental organizations, Canada managed to include an article in the final text of the convention that expressly permits ongoing military interoperability with states that are not signatories to the convention. Interoperability essentially enables people to do their jobs in a military context.

Bill C-6 is not limited to that article on interoperability. The main problem is in clause 11, which provides a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 would have allowed Canadian soldiers to obtain, possess, use and transport cluster munitions in joint operations with another country that was not a signatory to the convention and to request their use by the armed forces of another country.

However, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP offered its support to Canadian and foreign civilian organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government, and we managed to persuade it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

I find it surprising that we had to bring forward an amendment to the bill. It seems to me that this amendment should have been included in the original bill, although I am pleased the government worked with the NDP on this.

Unfortunately, this bill still has other flaws. If they are not corrected, Canada’s implementation of its commitment to oppose cluster munitions will only be superficial. If Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention globally in that other countries would be able to invoke the withdrawal and exception options it contains as precedents. Believe me, we do not want that.

In its present form, the bill is less restrictive than all the laws passed to date by the countries that have ratified the convention. That is very disturbing.

The government has become somewhat timid, which does not surprise me when you consider its general reluctance to take action on arms control. For example, it refused to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, unlike all our NATO allies, and also relaxed arms export restrictions.

What we want is clear. The NDP fully supported a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We stand firm on that and are very proud of it. However, this bill undermines the convention instead of ensuring that it is implemented. We also oppose the bill in its present form. At the committee stage, we worked hard to improve it together with groups from civil society. Even though the amendment approved by the Conservatives is an improvement, it is not enough for us to be able to support the bill.

In conclusion, I believe it would be best to delete clause 11 entirely. That is what we propose.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6. As we know, this is the Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I will start by giving some background on this bill, and I will then talk about our position.

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 a conflict ends.

I am going to present some facts and figures. To properly understand this issue, it is important to note that civilians suffer 98% of all injuries caused by cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are very small. They are often the size of a D battery or a tennis ball and they have a failure rate of 30%. Unexploded cluster munitions basically become anti-personnel mines. A single cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and usually disperses them over an area the size of two or three football fields. Up to 37 countries and territories could be affected by the cluster munitions that were used during armed conflicts. Nineteen countries used cluster munitions during combat operations. A total of 34 countries produce cluster munitions, although half of them have now stopped producing these types of weapons, in some cases as a result of the convention. Canada has never used or produced cluster munitions, and our country should be thanked for that.

The worldwide stock of cluster munitions represents about 4 billion bombs, and one-quarter of that stock is held by the United States.

In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other kinds of explosive weapons. Thousands of civilians have been injured or killed by these weapons, whose presence makes farming dangerous and impedes the reconstruction and development of vital infrastructure such as roads, railway lines and power plants.

It is often difficult and dangerous to remove unexploded cluster munitions after an armed conflict. Some countries have been dealing with this problem for decades.

Laos is the most cluster-bomb-contaminated country in the world, with tens of millions of unexploded cluster munitions.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines.

A total of 113 countries signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions and 84 ratified it. Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states, article 21.

Bill C-6 does not contain just this clause on military co-operation with non-signatory countries. The main problem lies in clause 11, which proposes a very vague list of exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions during combined operations involving a state not party to the Convention, and to request the use of a cluster munitions by another state's armed forces.

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the NDP backed Canadian and foreign civil organizations that called for the bill to be amended.

We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government.

We were able to convince the government to prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. Unfortunately, this bill still has serious flaws. If they are not addressed, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be shallow.

In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could have international implications for the Convention because the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries. The bill, in its current form, is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far. This is an embarrassing situation for Canada, which has always boasted about its humanitarian spirit. However, I am not surprised by the government's attitude, given its general attitude towards arms control.

I would like to remind members that this Conservative government refused to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed by every one of our NATO allies. It was also this government that relaxed restrictions on arms exports. That is shameful because under this government our international humanitarian reputation continues to be eroded. Instead of being a leader on the international scene, the Conservative government is only tarnishing Canada's reputation.

I would also like to explain the NDP's position on Bill C-6. To begin, the NDP fully supported a treaty banning cluster munitions. However, Bill C-6 undermines the convention instead of ensuring its implementation.

The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as being the weakest and worst bill in the world. It undermines the very spirit in which the convention was drafted. We are opposing the bill in its current form. My NDP colleagues who are part of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development worked hard with civil society groups to improve the bill. While the amendment that the Conservatives agreed to is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support the bill. At this stage, we are proposing that clause 11 be deleted in its entirety.

A number of stakeholders share our opinion and are also opposed to the Conservative government's Bill C-6. To begin, I would like to talk about Earl Turcotte, a former senior coordinator for mines action at DFAIT who was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention. He stepped down in protest of the Conservative government's decision to introduce this very weak implementation bill. In a written statement intended for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, he said that the Conservative government had betrayed the trust of the other countries that signed the convention when it included the controversial clause in Bill C-6. Mr. Turcotte is fighting for more binding legislation. He said:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention to date.It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, is also opposed to the bill. 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.

Even the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which almost never issue position statements on international laws, opposed this bill.

For all of these reasons, if the government is not prepared to amend this bill, we will oppose it. Other countries want to see us show some leadership on this bill.

Bill C-6—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

that, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third 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 stages of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-6—Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a propitious opportunity for me to provide the following notice to the House. I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-6, 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 of the bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to, so we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, Drug-Free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House leader of the official opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a few very interesting examples. I talked about Bill C-32 earlier. The last time we studied it was on April 9. Three people spoke to this bill, which the government claims is fundamental and extremely important.

I cannot wait to see which of these bills will get more time than the others. Obviously it will be their pet projects, the ones they can get a lot of mileage out of.

There are other bills that we have not seen since January, such as Bill C-2. Three people spoke to Bill C-3 on May 8. No one has spoken to Bill C-6 yet. Three people spoke to Bill C-8 and no one has spoken to Bill C-10. However, they were approved in committee a very long time ago.

If the government believed in the fight against contraband tobacco, the bill would have been sent back to the House as soon as it left the committee. Since the bill was approved in committee, it could have been passed quickly by the House. We are going to have to pass it at the same time as a bunch of other bills.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[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, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. 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. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to 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, let me start by sharing a couple of sentiments with my friend.

First, on this side of the House—speaking for myself at least, and many others, including the Prime Minister—we congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on their success and wish them all the best in the next round, where I am optimistic Canadians will have much to look forward to.

Second, I have to agree with the member about the fact that what we saw today was a preview of what we would see if the NDP were ever to win government. We saw a grilling where the highlight was the question of NDP corruption and abuse of taxpayers' dollars. That is what we could expect to see if the NDP were ever to become government, and because Canadians know that, we will never have to fear it happening.

That abuse of taxpayers' funds goes beyond the question of breaking rules and not following rules. It goes to the whole NDP philosophy that taxpayers' money is there for them, they should get more of it, and they should spend it in every way possible. That is what the NDP is all about.

We in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, have an approach that is focused on a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament that respects taxpayers' dollars. As a result, we will continue with our agenda.

I will note the highlight today from the NDP. The NDP was defending itself on charges of improper spending and improperly using taxpayers' dollars for partisan activity. The member did not point out that the NDP's positive agenda was what they were proposing today in the House of Commons on one of the rare days when NDP members actually get to put forward their own policy proposals. It is funny how he says, “That is not the highlight”. I agree with him, because when they do get in power, they will have very little to advocate for.

That said, we on this side do follow the rules, and the rules require that we continue with the NDP opposition day motion for the balance of the day.

Tomorrow we will start the second reading debate of Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, before we return to our constituencies for a week.

Upon our return we will roll up our sleeves and work hard for Canadians in the final sittings until the summer.

On Monday, May 26, we will consider Bill C-18, which is the agricultural growth act.

On Tuesday, May 27, we will resume the second reading debate on Vanessa's law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act.

That will be followed by Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act at second reading.

The next day will see us continue our productive, hard-working, and orderly agenda by returning to the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship act. As hon. members might recall, the New Democrats proposed a second reading amendment to block the passage of this important bill.

On Thursday, May 29, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Act. After that debate concludes, we will consider Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage. Finally, we will consider Bill C-10, the Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, at report stage and third reading on Friday, May 30.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this spring.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in relation to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, government officials confirmed yesterday that Bill C-6 would still allow Canadian personnel to authorize the use of cluster munitions. People are concerned this could undermine the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Seventeen NATO countries have already ratified the treaty without this kind of exception.

Will the government work with us to close the loopholes in the bill?

Disarmament Week

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

Mr. Speaker, this is Disarmament Week.

Canada was once a leader in disarmament issues. Take, for example, the motion that was unanimously adopted by the House in 2010 regarding nuclear disarmament and the Ottawa convention on anti-personnel mines.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. With Bill C-6, the Conservatives are undermining the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Cluster munitions primarily kill civilians.

Canada is withdrawing from the Arms Trade Treaty, which 114 countries, including the United States, have signed. What is more, last week we learned that this government is easing controls on Canadian military equipment exports. I could go on.

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP wants to build a safer world through multilateralism and conflict prevention.

Have a good Disarmament Week.