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 House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in Amendment

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting the short title.

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

(seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre) moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to our amendments to Bill C-6.

We have debated this bill before. In fact, we had an iteration of the bill from the Senate before, in which we had concerns at the time of where the bill was originating from. I will not go over that tonight.

Bill C-6 is a very important piece of legislation. Sadly, it took the government quite a while to bring in legislation for the cluster munitions treaty.

Perhaps I will start by going over the treaty itself. The convention was built upon the Ottawa treaty, which was very successful, and we are all very proud of it. That was the Ottawa land mines treaty convention. It was built upon that treaty to rid the world of these horrific weapons: cluster munitions. It was signed by 118 countries, which is significant as that is more than three-quarters of the member states of the UN, with 84 countries ratifying it. In fact, in terms of the process, there were negotiations, and the Dublin process and Oslo process followed it. What we ended up with was a convention that was important for the whole issue of disarmament and to rid the world of these horrific munitions.

I think everyone is aware of what land mines are, but what is so horrific about cluster munitions is that they are very difficult to source. They fall from the sky and are particularly vicious in the sense that they are often misunderstood by those in war zones as being toys. These bombs are as small as a D battery. These bomblets are dropped from the sky and explode across the terrain. They are very difficult to discover and, of course, to clean up. The damage caused from them has been horrific in conflicts right across the world. They have maimed and killed children and adults. People have wanted to rid the world of these munitions for a very long time.

It is important to note that at times the world has come together to focus on disarmament. I mentioned the Ottawa treaty, which was to work to rid the world of land mines. That has been successful, but more work needs to be done. However, this is on cluster munitions, which is something that people have worked on for quite a while.

I have two testimonies to give members an idea of the cluster munition.

The first is from Remzi Mehmeti from South Serbia. Remzi's 15-year-old son was walking home with his three friends and picked up two unexploded cluster bomblets. His son died and his friends were injured.

This testimony is from Mai Chi, who is a demining expert in Vietnam.

I saw the pliers and a pair of broken sunglasses that the children had used to tamper with the submunition, in an attempt to get scrap metal to sell for cash...

By the way, this is a typical kind of work for children in developing countries.

The quote goes on with:

I saw a pair of torn sandals, a hole on the floor and the ball bearings from the submunition.

I walked closer to the bed in the centre of the house. Someone pulled the blanket up, revealing two dead bodies. Legs and hands were smashed and blown away.

What a terrifying scene. I closed my eyes, feeling breathless and ran out. People were crying louder and louder.

These children had taken scrap metal, brought it home and did what they usually did with scrap metal, which was pull it apart. In doing so, they had no idea they were pulling apart a cluster munition. It blew up and killed them both. This is why we have to get rid of cluster munitions.

I am saddened to say that we have tried to work with the government. We have made propositions. We have brought amendments tonight to change the implementation of this treaty. As members know, when a state signs a treaty, that is the first step. It is to say that the treaty is here and we will sign it. For instance, I was encouraging the government today to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. As was mentioned by a colleague in the House, we have not done so, along with other countries like Russia, Syria, and other countries that are the usual suspects in not signing these treaties.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been pilloried by many experts and those who strongly believe in the whole idea of banning the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other sections. Clause 11 allows Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not be in joint operations with them while they were using those particular armaments. This bill has a void in it, a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre where one of our allies is using these munitions. This is not acceptable.

I will read clause 11 into the record, but I will omit the first part of the paragraph. It allows “Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention” to direct or authorize “an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition”.

What that does is basically work against the whole notion and spirit of the convention. I have gone over this with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have talked to the government on many occasions. Clause 11 works against the spirit and the notion of the convention. What we are saying to the government in these amendments is that if it is interested in taking a leadership role when it comes to cluster munitions, then it has to have the legislation that lives up to that. What the treaty asks of the member states who sign it is to basically get rid any stockpiles they have and not to use them if there is an occasion when there are cluster munitions in theatre. It is fine for us to say that we do not have any or that we will get rid of them, but it is another thing to say that we will not use them.

It is not just the NDP saying this. Let me quote from some of the people who are critical of this legislation, to the point where they are saying that we must vote against this legislation because it undermines the treaty.

For instance, the Red Cross, which never speaks out on legislation, feels strongly about this issue. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Red Cross have said that clause 11 would:

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

The Red Cross is saying that clause 11 would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the treaty.

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said the following at committee:

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.

This is important to note, because former prime minister Malcolm Fraser is an expert not only on cluster munitions but on disarmament. He knows what he speaks of.

Therefore, our amendments are to try to fix this bill so that we can be proud of our signature on the treaty. Sadly, what the Conservatives have done is give us a treaty that undermines their reputation and their signature, and we believe it is not adequate.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He has done a lot of work on this issue. I would just very briefly ask him about the fact that when it comes to clause 11, we are not following the spirit of what was done with the former treaty when we talked about land mines. Could he comment and further expand on that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland is absolutely right. As I said in my speech, what we had with the Ottawa treaty and the implementation of that treaty was clear definition around interoperability: we would not use or be in theatre when land mines were being used by any of our allies. This undermines that.

If I may just read into the record, Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, 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 a weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Again, this is one particular section of the bill that really undermines the spirit of the convention and goes in the opposite direction of what we did with the Ottawa protocol and the Ottawa land mines treaty.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent speech. He did a fine job explaining how the Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is seriously flawed.

We are in the process of distorting the Convention on Cluster Munitions when, as my honourable colleague explained so well, it is a convention that urgently needs to be signed. A total of 113 countries have already signed it and 84 countries have ratified it, while Canada is lagging behind on this international issue. This is not the first time under the Conservative government that Canada has been lagging behind at the international level when it should be leading by example. In that respect, the passage of this bill as it is currently worded would be a major step back in terms of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I would like my colleague to speak to the importance of adopting the amendments we are proposing so that we can resume our role as a leader in international affairs, including in this area.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point.

I will read into the record what was said by Earl Turcotte, one of the former negotiators for DFAIT on this treaty. He left because he saw what was happening. He said the following:

...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.

This is one of the people who helped negotiate the treaty on our behalf. I should note, which I did not mention in my comments and is also important to note, that these munitions disproportionately affect civilians. More than 90% of the people who are affected by these horrific Denel munitions are civilians. This is something we need to take seriously. We have to get it right, and that is why we are proposing the amendments to the legislation: to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks by expressing my deep gratitude to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, both for his championing of this issue and for his generosity in seconding my amendment this evening, so that I can explain the reasons that the Green Party is so very disappointed with what is before us here in Bill C-6.

We had a chance to get it right. We had a chance to stand with the community of nations and fulfill the promise of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. As my hon. colleague has mentioned, Canada played a significant role. We got a reputation globally as being willing to step out ahead when there was the Ottawa process to deal with land mines. It is in that vein that we are going to go forward and deal with cluster munitions.

As was just mentioned, it is estimated that between 95% and 98% of the casualties from cluster munitions are civilians. Of that, 40% are children. These are not weapons of war. These are monstrous tools of destruction for the innocent, and Canada should rightly be at the forefront in ensuring that such munitions are never used again.

I want to quote from the treaty, which we have actually signed. We have signed this convention, and the legislation before us is required as a tool to bring that treaty into force for Canada. For ratification we need a domestic law. Unfortunately, this domestic law has tilted in the wrong direction.

Let us just look at the language of the convention. Canada has signed this treaty. As a state party to the convention, we are:

Deeply concerned that civilian populations and individual citizens continue to bear the brunt of armed conflict. Determined [that is a good verb] to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions at the time of their use, when they fail to function as intended or when they are abandoned.Concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians, including women and children....

In this vein, we continue to have the language of commitment, of concern to protect human life from weapons that are designed specifically to destroy human populations, civilian populations, and do damage to the innocent.

The operative section of the convention is very important, and I want to return to it for a few of the things that the bill fails to do. Article 1, the general obligations and scope of application, commits Canada to the following:

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:(a) Use cluster munitions; (b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;

The third part of this important paragraph is really significant. It states:

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

Those are the key operative phrases. Then we have Bill C-6, which is largely a carve-out that says we were just kidding when we said “never under any circumstances”. We have a bunch of circumstances in which Canadian Armed Forces are going to be working alongside one of our military allies. It is clearly intended. As my hon. friend mentioned, so far the United States has not ratified this treaty, so we know that we might be in a theatre of operations—as we now describe wars—with our allies, namely the United States. They might be using cluster munitions, and we would want to safeguard our ability to work alongside them.

I will acknowledge and I do accept that this is a large and important move for this particular Conservative administration, because it so rarely changes any bill. My hon. friend, who is the parliamentary secretary, moved in committee to remove the opportunity for any Canadian soldier or military operation to actually use the weapons, but the bill still allows us to participate, to be alongside in a shared military operation with an ally that is not a party to this convention.

There was other language put forward in various presentations to the committee that would have protected Canadian operations if they were in such a shared military operation with a non-party state. There was other language that would have worked very well. Human Rights Watch suggested that we could replace clause 11 with the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of the paragraphs...[which are referenced] of the National Defence Act or who is an employee as defined...[and this is the operative portion] in the course of military cooperation, our combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from merely participating in military cooperation or operations with a foreign country that is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

That would have vouchsafed. That would have been the protection the Canadian military would have needed for the circumstance for which we have created a far too aggressive exemption in clause 11.

It is a great tragedy that we had one amendment. I have to say that one amendment in the current context of this particular Parliament, coming from the government, is unusual and it was welcomed, but it did not go far enough to rescue this from being, as my hon. friend has said, the weakest of all the implementing legislation of any nation that has so far signed this convention.

It leaves us in a position that is really rather shameful.

I want to return to one of the other areas. I mentioned that in the convention language, we are obligated as a convention party to do nothing to assist or induce anyone to engage in an activity prohibited here.

A great number of nations have, in interpreting that section in which we are prohibited from assisting, interpreted it very clearly to mean that there should be a ban on investment. There should be no investments allowed. In order to comply with this treaty, Canada should ban anyone from investing in any of the operations of any of the providers of cluster munitions.

There is nothing in this legislation that stops companies in Canada or investors in Canada from actually assisting through their financial investments. That is the kind of amendment that should have been included, and it is not here.

I pointed out that the following nations have actually ensured, through legislation, that no investment in cluster munitions be allowed. That is included in legislation from Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Samoa, and Switzerland.

As an interpretive decision, so too have other nations said that they understand this convention to mean that they must not allow any investment in cluster munitions. In taking the interpretive decision, the U.K. and a larger group of nations, including Germany, Norway, and many others, have decided they cannot understand this convention without understanding that they have to ban investment in cluster munitions.

We have lost the moral high ground here. We are slipping down to where we have signed a convention that says we are completely committed to never, under any circumstance, use or encourage or assist in the spread of these deadly, immoral weapons of assault on civilians. We will never do that, we say, yet somehow, when we read Bill C-6, we feel that we have crossed our fingers behind our backs. We mean “never” most of the time, but sometimes we are going to be in a theatre of war and we do not want to be too bound by our word under the convention to ban cluster munitions.

In this place we still have time to remedy that. The hon. member for Ottawa South has put forward an amendment. The Green Party has put forward an amendment. Should this House assembled decide that Canada can reclaim the moral high ground, we still have time.

We have the moral courage. We are Canadians. We stand for peace. We believe that children should not be blown up because they find a piece of metal and think they can recover that scrap metal to buy their family supper.

We are, by God, Canadians, and we stand for peace, and we stand against war, and we stand against cluster munitions. Bill C-6 says “not really”. Let us amend the bill here and now at third reading and report stage.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the global stockpile of cluster munitions and submunitions totals approximately four billion, with a quarter of these in U.S. hands right now. In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 were wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices. This is a real question for us right now, for reasons I just mentioned, if we do not get this right and we do not implement this treaty. I believe it is not just about this treaty, but it is about a precedent we are setting when it comes to international treaties. I would like her comment on that.

In committee the Conservatives said that it would not happen. They said we would never have a situation in which one of our generals would order one of our Canadian Forces members to go in theatre with a member state that had cluster munitions. However, I do not think that is good enough. It is about the precedents we are setting by undermining the treaty. I would like to hear her comments on that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, for my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre, I would love to believe that the hypothetical would not arise, but we are living in a time when the basic understanding of how a civilized country behaves seems to be slipping between our fingers.

Our greatest ally and friend is the United States. I have great respect for Barack Obama and I think he is a wonderful and inspiring human being, except he has ordered more unmanned drones to commit illegal murders in other countries than any previous U.S. president. We seem to be taking a very mild approach to the threat of torture. I never thought I would hear a Canadian minister of the crown speak of the possibility that because other things were a bigger threat, the government did not really mind if somebody got information by torture.

There is a lot of moral relativism going on right now in relation to whether we are a civilized country and stand for anything. I believe we are. I believe we always will be. However, this kind of climb down from the treaty commitments that we made, bringing forward legislation that is so weak, indicates that we are prepared to say one thing and do another, because when push comes to shove, we do not stand for anything. I do not think that is what Canadians want to see.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on many occasions to sit down and have discussions with a former minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. Lloyd played a very important role in terms of the land mines deal that ultimately demonstrated that Canada, if it did it right, could play a very strong leadership role on issues of this nature.

Could the leader of the Green Party provide some comment on the leadership role Canada could play if it chose to do so? What I reflect on is the land mine treaty deal in which Canada did play a critical role, and that is why we are where we are today with the land mines.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the lines of our former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy to whom the member refers. He used to say that we punched above our weight. We really do. We are a relatively small population of the globe, a relatively small economy, yet Canadian leadership has accomplished so much historically. That is not a small thing.

Going back further, before he was prime minister the former minister of foreign affairs, Lester B. Pearson, resolved the Suez Crisis in such a way that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. In that exercise, he created the concept of having a peacekeeping force. It is not for nothing. It has been Canadian leadership in drafting the UN charter, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Law of the Sea.

If we look around the world at some of the fundamental documents that speak to multilateralism and improving the life of a community of nations through a system of rules and respect, we see that Canadian leadership has always been there. Now we are losing ground. We are losing our global reputation. I see it every time I go to a climate negotiation. It breaks my heart when people look at our accreditation and say, “Oh you're Canadian. Why do you people even bother coming anymore?”

We need to reclaim that global leadership. If we accept the amendments before us, we can begin to rebuild that reputation.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has long recognized that explosive remnants of war, such as cluster munitions, have a devastating humanitarian impact on individuals and communities. Not only does their presence hinder the development of communities by rendering the land or infrastructure inaccessible, but they are often found by children who are attracted by their bright colours and not aware of the deadly danger they pose. Even when they do not kill, cluster munitions have caused horrific injuries that seriously jeopardize the future of those affected and their families.

Canada has long been committed to protecting civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war. As such, Canada actively participated in the effort to rid the world of these weapons and signed the resulting Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008.

The proposed prohibiting cluster munitions act reflects the negotiated compromise that was achieved in the Convention on Cluster Munitions. The government believes that the convention strikes the right balance between humanitarian considerations and the need for states parties to protect their legitimate security and defence interests, which in Canada's case includes the need to interact militarily with other countries, including the United States, our closest military ally.

In these circumstances, Canada maintained this fine balance to preserve indispensable military co-operation while, at the same time, renouncing cluster munitions ourselves and furthering the broader goal of a global ban. Security requires military capacity, but it also requires respect for national differences. We will engage in advocacy, but, ultimately, we must respect the sovereign choices of our allies just as we expect them to respect our own choices.

Canada is not alone in the position we are taking. Other countries also seek an end to the use of cluster munitions and want to join the convention, but need to maintain military co-operation so as to safeguard their security. That is why convention negotiations reached the compromise contained in article 21 of the treaty, which allows states parties to conduct military co-operation and operations with states not party. This article and its application are important for the universalization of the treaty and the norms it establishes. Article 21 makes possible a larger membership in the convention, which, in turn, will generate greater momentum toward the eventual complete elimination of cluster munitions.

The implementing legislation we are debating today, if enacted, would allow Canada to ratify and fully implement its obligations under the convention. It would allow us to do this without refusing to co-operate with our closest friends and allies and without sacrificing our own security interests. Ridding the world of cluster munitions is a policy that everyone can agree on and I hope that all members will join us in supporting it.

The convention prohibits Canada from engaging in activities that would involve cluster munitions, subject to exceptions for military co-operation and other permitted activities, such as research for defence and clearance purposes. That is a legal obligation on Canada, which we take on when we ratify and which does not require legislation. What the proposed legislation before us does is extend a parallel set of prohibitions and limitations into Canadian domestic law.

The convention prohibits Canada from the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, foreign movement, import and export of cluster munitions and the bill before us today would create parallel offences for people subject to Canadian law. The bill would also extend the criminal prohibitions on aiding, abetting, counselling and attempting or conspiring to commit a prohibited activity. These provisions are important as a means of ensuring that nobody in Canada can take any role in any prohibited activity, even if the actual activity happens in another country which has not made it illegal.

The language of the bill does not copy exactly the language of the convention. Instead, the bill has been drafted in a form that ensures that Canadian courts will apply the offences in a manner consistent with international obligations on Canada itself. For example, the offence of possession includes not only what the convention calls stockpiling, but also the possession of even a single munition or submunition.

Hon. members should take note that the offences delineated in the bill are broad and exclusions from them are narrow. They have been strictly limited so they can only apply to persons who are engaged in activities related to military co-operation and operations involving the government, only when the activity in question is part of a permitted form of military co-operation and only when the other country involved is not a party to the convention. This is very important because it means that the other countries gradually accede to the convention and denounce these munitions, the legal exclusions permitted by the bill become progressively narrower.

The offences and exclusions also reflect the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces, which are now of the Canadian state and therefore fully subject to the treaty, cannot use cluster munitions. To give added assurances, the government agreed to amend the bill to prohibit the direct use of cluster munitions by Canadian Armed Forces personnel when on exchange or secondment with states not party to the convention. This amendment would ensure what the Government had intended all along, and which a Canadian Armed Forces order will reinforce, that members of the Canadian Armed Forces will never directly use cluster munitions at any time, even when they are on exchange with a non-state party's military unit.

If the Canadian Armed Forces are in exclusive control of the choice of munitions to be used, they are also prohibited from even requesting their use. However, if the choice of munitions used is under the control of another country, then the personnel involved will not be subject to prosecution for doing so. For example, a Canadian soldier who is under fire is allowed to call upon an ally for support and can ask for help even with the knowledge that the ally will or might choose cluster munitions, without any fear of being accused of and prosecuted for this criminal offence.

It is important to highlight that these exceptions apply only to the specific offences established by the bill and not any other crimes against Canadian or international law. Under international law, the indiscriminate or disproportionate use of any weapon is a war crime, whether the weapon is a cluster munition or not, and nothing in the proposed legislation changes this. Other applicable international legal obligations remain fully in force for Canada, as they do for any other states with which we would conduct combined operations.

Once the bill is enacted, Canada will be able to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions and take its full place among the states opposed to the use of these weapons. Even prior to the introduction of the bill, we began fulfilling the provisions of the convention. The Department of National Defence took cluster munitions out of active service some time ago. Some have already been destroyed, and the rest are in the process of being destroyed, as required by the Convention.

Furthermore, we are fulfilling our co-operation and assistance obligation on an ongoing basis. Since 2006, Canada has contributed more than $215 million to mine action projects that address the impact of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions. With respect to cluster munitions more specifically, Canada has provided funding to Laos and Lebanon for risk education and cluster munitions clearance activities, as well as to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Palau, and South Sudan for clearance activities. In November of last year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced $10 million over the next 18 months to continue Canada's proud tradition of support to demining efforts, victim assistance, and risk awareness programs.

These measures taken outside the framework of the bill we are considering today and were taken before we ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions demonstrates our commitment to the goals of the convention and its full implementation.

In order for this treaty to be effective in the long run, it will be important for as many countries as possible to sign on to it. Ideally, if all countries were to join the treaty, cluster munitions could be completely eliminated around the world. Unfortunately, in the short term that is not likely to happen. Indeed, some countries will need a lot of encouragement to join. It is therefore important for countries like Canada, as well as those friends and allies who share our belief in the goals of this treaty, to encourage those countries that have not yet done so to sign and ratify this treaty as soon as possible. We are working hard to do so.

I hope that all members of the House share with me the hope that Canada will ratify this treaty soon. I therefore urge all members of the House to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

The hon. member knows that half the victims of cluster munitions are children, who are particularly drawn to unexploded sub-munitions because they look like brightly coloured toys.

Does the government agree that we should completely ban this weapon and put our words into action?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I thoroughly agree with the member. This is a very dangerous situation for children, who are damaged by these things. I agree with her that they should be banned completely. The unfortunate truth is that many countries still have not done so. As I said in my speech, we are forcing them to do so. Canada would like to do that. Therefore, we are taking a pragmatic approach to this by working with those countries that have not signed and only in a very narrow capacity. On a larger scale, our goal is to make sure that cluster munitions are banned all over the world.

Second, Canada is very much committed to helping those who have already gone through these accidents to ensure that they return to a normal life as quickly as possible by clearing the mines, helping in education, and destroying the mines that have not yet exploded.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The interoperability issue, which is in question in clause 11, deserves to be addressed here. In the past, we have addressed it by saying that we strictly believe that we will not involve our military and the members of the military in this type of exercise in other operations. However, in this particular example, this does not seem to be exercised.

I really do not understand the logic in not accepting what we consider to be reasonable amendments to help ameliorate the situation by instructing our personnel to not get involved in this type of activity.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would go deeper to understand the tremendous co-operation we have with our closest ally, the U.S.A., he would understand why we need a very narrow definition. It is to protect Canadian soldiers so that they do not break our laws.

In the larger frame of things, where possible, as was made very clear in my speech, Canadian soldiers would comply with the requirements of this convention. The need for what this convention is talking about is the bare essence of what Canadian soldiers would apply. However, should it happen that the U.S.A. does not sign this treaty, and we have such massive co-operation with each other, this is to protect Canadian soldiers. We agree with the member that we want to ban these munitions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. He has travelled abroad and has represented Canada proudly. I thank him for his speech tonight as someone who knows this subject very well.

I was not aware of the many good things Canada is doing, not just in terms of education but in helping to clear the scourge of cluster munitions from countries. That kind of international work will be helpful to the people at home to know.

As we look to ratify this particular piece of legislation for this Convention on Cluster Munitions, what would that do? What kind of pressure would that put on countries that have not yet signed on? Canada is doing many things on the international stage to draw consensus in a positive way.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, when Canada signs this convention and more and more countries sign the convention, it would become, as the member of the Green Party said in her speech, a moral obligation for other countries to sign the convention as well.

If they did not sign they would stand out when the whole world, including Canada, is looking to ban this kind of weapon around the world. There would be a moral pressure on other countries to sign this convention.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my hon. colleagues for allowing me this time, and as always, I thank my constituents for giving me the honour of speaking to this and other measures.

We have been talking for the past hour about cluster munitions. I just wanted to address the gravity of the situation, in addition to what was said by my hon. colleague from British Columbia, the leader of the Green Party.

Cluster munitions are a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that release or eject smaller submunitions. Commonly, a cluster bomb ejects explosive bomblets that are designed to kill personnel and destroy vehicles. Other cluster munitions are designed to destroy runways or electric power transmission lines, disperse chemical or biological weapons, or scatter land mines. Some submunition-based weapons can disperse non-munitions, such as leaflets. Of course, that is just a mild form.

As many people have said, over 95% of the victims, when it comes to cluster bombs, are civilians. For these cluster bombs, many would say, ratification has been a long-time coming. In this particular situation, and in all situations around the world, we must respect the spirit of the treaty that was signed.

Because cluster bombs release many small bomblets over a wide area, they pose risks to civilians both during attacks and afterwards.The weapons are prone to indiscriminate effects, especially in populated areas, the larger urban areas. Unexploded bomblets, and this is where it gets even worse, can kill or maim civilians and/or unintended targets long after a conflict has ended, and they are costly to locate and remove.

We draw the similarities between the work we did on the landmine treaty here in Ottawa and our ongoing efforts to defuse landmines around the world.

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-6. We worked hard to improve the bill while it was before the foreign affairs committee and have met with numerous organizations and individual Canadians who have shared their concerns with us about the legislation. I want to congratulate my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie, who was involved in that, for the hard work he accomplished.

Unfortunately, there was one improvement made to the bill, and only one, at committee. On balance, we find it still sorely lacking in terms of meeting Canada's commitments as a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Canada has long been a leader on humanitarian disarmament, most notably with the Liberal government's leadership in banning the use of landmines, and we must avoid undermining this Canadian tradition of international leadership.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an important convention, with an ability to reduce radically the number of cluster bombs and cluster bomb deaths and injuries around the world.

These are particularly heinous and indiscriminate weapons, as I mentioned earlier. Recent research indicates that more than 90% of reported cluster munition casualties are civilians, and about half of these are children, who often mistake these bombs and bomblets as harmless toys.

These are weapons that are hard to target. They are hard to control. Decades after the wars in Southeast Asia, hundreds of civilians continue to lose life and limb to those bombs in countries such as Laos and Vietnam. It not just a problem of the past. Cluster munitions continue to be used in the brutal war in Syria and will leave a legacy of death and injury in that country for years after the war ends.

Canada has a duty to ensure that we hold ourselves to the highest possible humanitarian standard in our international obligations. Leading the fight to ban these weapons would be consistent with that duty.

Bill C-6, Canada's ratification legislation in answer to the treaty, contains serious loopholes, in particular clause 11 of the bill, which has to do with joint operations with states that are not signatories to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The Conservative government has put in “exceptions” in this section of Bill C-6 that undermine the spirit and the objective of the convention and call into question Canada's commitment to ban cluster munitions.

Earlier I mentioned that we saw one improvement at committee stage. The government finally agreed to amend the wording of the legislation to indicate that Canada could not “use” cluster munitions. The practical effect of this change seems to mean that Canadian soldiers operating as part of joint military missions with non-signatory countries would be prohibited from dropping a cluster bomb.

However, as pointed out by the Mennonite Central Committee and other expert witnesses, Canadian Forces could still facilitate the ongoing use of these weapons in many instances, and here they are: directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import, or export of a cluster munition; expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition; acquiring, possessing, or moving a cluster munition; transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition; aiding, abetting, or counselling another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import, or export a cluster munition; conspiring with another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import, or export a cluster munition; and finally, receiving, comforting, or assisting another person to use, develop, make, acquire, possess, move, import or export a cluster munition.

Including such major loopholes radically undermines the practical effects of the convention.

Either Canada is for or against cluster munitions. By passing this legislation as it is currently formulated, the government appears to be engaged in what my former colleague, Bob Rae, called organized hypocrisy. We sign legislation that appears, but only appears, to ratify the convention , but we include major loopholes in fine print that mean that nothing would really change on the combat field, at least when we participate in joint operations with non-signatory countries, such as the United States, which is typical of most Canadian deployments.

The government replied that the realities of interoperability mean that we had no choice but to include these loopholes if we wished to continue participating in joint missions with the Americans. This is clearly not true. In fact, 20 NATO countries have signed this convention without including these kinds of loopholes in their ratifying legislation, and they continue to operate in joint missions with the United States.

Department of National Defence representatives noted that there is always recognition in a partnership such as NATO that each country has different rules, and there are no repercussions from those differences inside a coalition. In a case where a nation would not use a particular weapon, we would not eliminate them from the coalition. We would simply employ them in the coalition in such a way as to not cause them to violate a principle or a domestic law, which would have fit in our amendments.

Bill C-6 is also missing key positive obligations that are outlined in the convention, including stockpiling, destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of our convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions. This ratification legislation does not adequately promote the stigmatization of the use of cluster bombs.

The government likes to talk a lot about how its foreign policy is based on principled stands and seems to imply that this is novel for Canadian governments. What is principled, though, about passing legislation that appears to ratify an international convention we signed onto but then including loopholes within that fine print? It is not the way we have proceeded in many treaties past.

Respectfully, I would suggest that Canada's previous leadership of banning land mines was a much better example of principled foreign policy. I very much regret that we are not able to improve the legislation significantly.

We would like to thank organizations such as Mines Action Canada and the Mennonite Central Committee that did all they could do to raise awareness about this issue. I would also like to thank the expert witnesses we heard in committee.

I am also very sorry for the thousands of people all over the world who have been injured or killed by these weapons, which we can all agree are the most devastating and most vicious weapons known to humankind.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about circumstances and so on.

First of all, I have to point out that it is an offence and remains an offence to request the use of cluster munitions. Canadians cannot request use of cluster munitions.

He talked about aiding and abetting. If a Canadian refuelling aircraft is refuelling an aircraft from the United States that may or may not be carrying cluster weapons—most likely not, but it turns out that it is—is the pilot or crew of the refuelling aircraft committing a crime?

If an air traffic controller directs an aircraft toward a target area, and of course that controller has no idea what that aircraft is carrying, but let us say for argument's sake it is carrying cluster munitions, is that air traffic controller now guilty of an offence?

There are many more circumstances that could be gone into. Those are just two examples. Does my colleague think those people have committed an offence or should be considered as having committed an offence?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of knowingly doing so is involved here, which is what we discussed at the foreign affairs committee.

Once again I would like to remind that member that it is directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import, or export of a cluster munition. We are talking about expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions, which his examples do not include. Acquiring, possessing or moving a cluster munition itself. These are quite explicit.

I certainly believe that allowing this amendment to go through would have explored these issues and would have closed a loophole to address all the questions that the member is asking. That brings up a point. By accepting these amendments I feel that those questions would have been addressed. By asking these questions, I would like to think that he would like to close these loopholes himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that Bill C-6 is an attempt to undermine rather than ratify the convention.

I had the pleasure of working in the committee that studied Bill C-6. We heard from many witnesses, including Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, who had this to say on 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.

We also heard from other witnesses, including former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser who 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.

Has my colleague been able to consult with stakeholders on this issue, and what is his reading of the stakeholder situation?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, many stakeholders brought up these concerns. Let us face it: a lot of the thoughts and testimony that we have brought to the House today have come from many of those witnesses.

The witnesses that my colleague mentioned, Mines Action Canada and the Mennonite Committee, have certainly been an important part of that. They have been very vocal in their opposition to some of these loopholes.

Other people who have written editorials have brought forward some of the things they talked about, such as removing the word “using” from clause 11(1)(c), not going far enough to eliminate the use of cluster bombs. One of the examples was that other nations that closed those loopholes engage in interoperability missions with other countries that are not signatories. In other words, if they can do it, so can we.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent address. The member spoke so clearly to the issues that I think all of us on the opposition benches at least, and I imagine some friends on the Conservative side in their heart, would like to see changed.

I am going to refer to a brief that came from Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, which made some of the same points. Their reading of this bill, as it is before us now, said that under this bill we may still be running, not only not meeting the convention's goals, but running “counter to, the convention's goals”.

They are concerned that the bill:

Permits assistance with cluster munition-related activities...in the course of joint military operations...;Allows stockpiling of cluster munitions in and transit of them through Canadian territory;Provides only a limited ban on transfer of cluster munitions; andFails explicitly to prohibit investment in the production of cluster munitions.

My question is for my hon. colleague. Given these failures, how does he believe Bill C-6 stands up to the promises and the commitments we have made in signing the convention in the first place?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her earlier speech when she spoke so passionately to this issue.

The witnesses we have seen speak passionately about things that are in the bill that are considered to be loopholes, which I mentioned earlier. They also speak to things not addressed, things that live up to the spirit of the treaty that was originally signed. For example, stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of its convention obligations, discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

There is a basic investment in the public realm as to what these bombs can do and how we need to eradicate them, and how we keep our governments in check to always make sure that we propose legislation that eliminates these destructive and unbearable munitions.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, specifically clause 11.

In my previous life, I was very familiar with cluster munitions because it was my job. They used to form part of our war stock of weapons on the CF-104 and later on the CF-18. I instructed others on their tactical application of weapons effects, which were horrific. We never dropped the actual weapons, even in training, due to the residual hazard, and thank God we never had to drop them in wartime, but we were trained and prepared to do so. That was then.

Members of this House are well aware of the nature of cluster munitions and the kind of harm they can cause. We all know that they have terrible effects and that any unexploded remnants are a long-term threat to civilians seeking to rebuild their community after a conflict has ended.

These cluster bombs, as has been pointed out, can contain hundreds of small bomblets that are designed to cover a large area. The problem is, there is always a dud rate, or some number of bomblets that do not detonate on impact but remain armed and deadly. Sometimes they are harvested intentionally, and very carefully, and used in the production of improvised explosive devices. More often, they are simply left lying around for an unsuspecting person to accidentally detonate them, with catastrophic results.

As Canadians, we should all be committed to ridding the world of these weapons. As parliamentarians, we should all be committed to ensuring that the Convention on Cluster Munitions is fully implemented as a step towards that ultimate goal. Bill C-6 was drafted carefully to reflect this commitment and to give effect to those obligations required by the convention within domestic Canadian legislation.

Bill C-6 would allow us to implement the convention while at the same time meet our broader defence needs. It would allow us to remain a strong and reliable ally and continue to contribute meaningfully on the international stage, both as a contributor and participant in joint and combined military operations, in the interest of international peace and security, and as a participant in the effort to rid the world of cluster munitions and their explosive remnants.

While Canada is ready to join the convention and renounce the direct use of cluster munitions, not all countries share our approach and may not join the convention any time soon. Some of them, of course, are NATO allies, countries with whom we would likely enter into combined military operations in the foreseeable future.

All members of this House understand that Canada and the United States are close allies and that the Canadian Armed Forces have a long-standing tradition and practice of close co-operation with our American counterparts. This co-operation has been good for both countries, and it is important and necessary for our common security interests. It has also been in the interest of peace and security at the global level. We co-operate in training, we exchange personnel so that each of us can understand how the other's military forces are organized and commanded, and we co-operate in actual military operations.

The convention would require Canada itself not to make, possess, or directly use cluster munitions and to prosecute and punish Canadians who do. However, it would also allow us to continue to co-operate with our allies.

I believe that Canadian international security interests require that we continue to co-operate as closely in the future as we have in the past with our allies. I believe that the convention and this bill strike the right balance in this regard.

Clause 11 of Bill C-6 contains exclusions to the bill's prohibitions in order to provide legal protection to the Canadian Armed Forces and government employees, allowing them to perform a range of activities during military co-operation and operations that are undertaken with states that have not joined the convention. This is specifically permitted by article 21 of the convention.

Article 21 was purposefully included in the text at the request of a number of countries, including Canada. We are not alone in advocating for military co-operation. A number of other countries have had legitimate military interoperability concerns and shared Canada's concerns that it was necessary to preserve the ability of countries that were ratified to co-operate with countries that might choose not to ratify.

In Bill C-6, and in our defence and security policies, Canada is applying the provisions of the convention as negotiated and drafted. The government has always been clear about what these provisions require and transparent about how it intended to implement them.

Article 21 does not allow Canada itself to use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, or transfer cluster munitions or to expressly request their use when the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control. All of these activities would be made offences in Canada. It would only allow individuals who participate in permitted forums of military co-operation involving Canada to do so without risk of criminal prosecution.

As the government has made clear, Canadian Armed Forces personnel would not be permitted to use cluster munitions, including when they are involved in military operations with allied forces or when deployed to allied military units. We have numerous Canadians on exchange with particularly American, but other NATO allies as well.

Bill C-6, as amended by the committee, would prohibit the direct use of cluster munitions by Canadian Armed Forces personnel in all circumstances. During committee hearings, we heard that the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued an interim directive prohibiting the use of these weapons in any Canadian Armed Forces operations and that another directive will be issued reflecting all of the requirements of Bill C-6, as ultimately adopted by Parliament, in addition to further restrictions relating to training and transport going beyond the requirements of the convention.

We were also told that all of these restrictions would be incorporated in the Canadian Armed Forces rules of engagement and would typically be communicated to allies when Canada enters into military co-operation activity with them, as one method of informing our allies of our obligations under the convention. They would be implemented at such time as the bill receives royal assent and would be legally binding for Canadian Armed Forces members under the military justice system.

The convention and Bill C-6 allow Canadian Armed Forces members to continue to ask for potentially life-saving military assistance from our allies, be they parties to the convention or not, without fear of being disciplined or put on trial for the policy decisions of these other states.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member opposite would remove the exclusion for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. This would have the effect not only of compromising Canadian security, but also of potentially subjecting our own soldiers to prosecution for activities that are not actually prohibited by the treaty itself.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have volunteered to serve their country and they have joined an honourable profession in which the directions of the organizations and the orders of commanding officers have the force of law. We have an obligation to ensure that companies and individuals in Canada do not have or use cluster munitions, but we need not, and we should not, enact criminal offences that could subject our own soldiers to liability for engaging in activities that the convention permits and that are essential to our own security and their safety.

Agreeing to renounce and dispose of our own duster munitions sends a strong signal as to where Canada stands on this important issue, but so does the message that we respect the decisions of our friends and allies and that we will stand with them in the defence of international security come what may. We have carefully considered the balance between security and disarmament, both in the long process of negotiating the convention and in our own review of the proposed implementing legislation.

We all agree that the ultimate goal is to eliminate cluster munitions from armed conflict. The best way to do that is for Canada to ratify the convention.

My hon. colleague from the NDP quoted Paul Hannon, Executive Director at Mines Action Canada. I will also quote Mr. Hannon. He said that the government's decision to remove the one word, “using”, was significant.

That was referred to by my colleague across the way as well. Mr. Hannon went on to say:

We were surprised to get any amendment and surprised that was the amendment we got. If they were only going to delete one word, “using” was the most important one.

It clarifies the fact that Canadian forces themselves can never use clusters, but it also means it will be more difficult for other countries to use them in joint ops when Canadians are involved.

We can interpret what other people say any way we like, I guess, but there seem to be at least some folks who are agreeing that what we are doing may not be what they would desire in their perfect world. However we are not operating in anybody's perfect world. Canada has gone a long way in this regard, as my colleague the parliamentary secretary for the minister of foreign affairs said. He talked about the mine clearing operations and so on. I have been to Afghanistan many times, and I have talked to the folks who are doing the mine clearing over there. They do tremendous work. This is an area that will take continued effort. It will go on for years and years. Yes, they are a terrible hazard and they do wreak terrible destruction, not just at the time of use.

I am not sure. I am having it checked, but I do not believe that the U.S. used any cluster munitions in their operations in Afghanistan. There were no Canadians killed by cluster munitions in Afghanistan, none. IEDs and so on are another issue.

The best way we can move forward on this is for Canada to ratify the convention with the measures of Bill C-6. I hope that members will look carefully at all the elements of the bill and will join me in supporting it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge the amendment that was made. We pushed and worked with the government over months, even years, I could add, because there was the first iteration from the Senate bill, and then this one. The Conservatives were stubbornly refusing to make any amendments at all, so I acknowledge that one amendment, that one word, but it is not enough. I will just cite the one part of the clause that is still here.

It says the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of paragraphs...

Then it refers to the National Defence Act. It continues:

...or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from....

Then it talks about directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use or acquisition of cluster munitions.

Therefore it is not up to the standard that we accepted for ourselves before.

Finally, before I give it to my colleague to answer, clause 11 still has problems on interoperability that could be undermining our adherence to the treaty. That is what we have to look at: whether there is a scenario in which we could be undermining adherence to the treaty. That is the problem. I would say that the member would know that it would be clear working with our allies that our obligation to adhere to a treaty, as to our own legislation, could be worked out with our allies to let them know that we must not be in theatre in any way, shape, or form—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The testimony of those who negotiated the convention supports this view. The lead negotiator, Earl Turcotte, said in writing about this bill that “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said it was “a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges for his question and excellent work.

It is not acceptable for us to sign a convention and make a commitment to the international community and then do the opposite when that community is not looking. There is a sort of legal loophole in this bill. There are holes everywhere. The bill is a sieve. It would enable Canadian soldiers to use cluster munitions in almost every situation, even though our country signed the convention.

That is why this bill needs to prohibit the use of cluster munitions. Ninety-eight percent of all injuries from cluster munitions are suffered by civilians. That number speaks for itself. It makes no sense from a humanitarian and peace-building perspective to continue using cluster munitions. We must take action.

We claim to want to bring peace to other countries. We sent our blue berets and other delegations to Afghanistan and other places all over the world to bring peace. We cannot use these cluster munitions and kill civilians. That makes no sense. That is not in line with Canada's humanistic reputation.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a new approach to talking about cluster munitions. I have heard a lot about this topic, but what I want to talk about is a bit new. The problem with cluster munitions is that they take human judgment out of a military operation.

I want to use some examples from the Second World War. Imagine a pilot who received information about the location of tents in enemy territory. He cannot wait to bomb those tents. He gets there and sees that on these tents is a white circle with a red cross on it. He stops the attack. He will not bomb a field hospital.

That is not the case with cluster munitions. The pilot does not even see the area. He sends a missile to attack an area—not a very specific target, not a tent. He bombs an area. That is the problem. A pilot cannot use judgment and stop an attack. The cluster munition decides who will die and who will not.

A sapper, an engineer, sets up a minefield. It is mapped out. He indicates on a map where the minefield is located, and he indicates what kind of mines were used and where they are placed. There are documents that support what I am saying. Every military manual will say that this is how to create a minefield. A well-placed minefield protects the sapper, but it also protects his troops, showing them they should not walk in that area. It prevents civilians from walking into the area by accident. It is very specific.

When a cluster munition explodes, it does not discriminate. It is left to chance. A huge area is haphazardly mined. Anyone can trip those mines. That is the problem with cluster munitions. The military no longer controls the placement and structure of a minefield.

A gunner attacks an enemy battery that is in a village, or near a village. What does the gunner do? He focuses his first shots on isolated targets before attacking the village, which gives civilians time to find shelter. A cluster munition does the exact opposite. It attacks the entire area at the same time, without warning. Cluster munitions increase the number of civilian victims, mostly because they are indiscriminate. Unlike humans, who can reason, machines are indiscriminate.

We are told to be careful with cluster munitions, because even though we may not use them, our allies might. However, when we stopped using poison gas, we stopped using it altogether. We did not say that our soldiers could not use poison gas but that we would let the Americans use it on our behalf. We did not say that if we ever needed support and if, by chance, poison gas was used, it would not be our fault. Poison gas is entirely prohibited. Cluster munitions are not subject to that same rule.

The biggest problem is that even if we ourselves do not use cluster bombs, we use their delivery systems. One of the biggest is the F-35. Our government wants to buy F-35s. An F-35 without cluster bombs is like a shotgun without bullets. Therein lies the contradiction.

How can we employ technology that is designed for the use of cluster bombs? That is what makes this situation so hypocritical. This is just like what happened with nuclear warheads.

Canada signed an international protocol prohibiting it from having nuclear weapons. What did Diefenbaker's Conservative government do? It said it wanted to use American F-101 Voodoo fighter jets and huge Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles. Those missiles are effective only if equipped with nuclear warheads. Canada might not have any nuclear warheads, but it would allow American technicians to bring nuclear warheads to Canadian military bases. If things started going badly, those American technicians could put nuclear warheads on Canadian planes and Canadian missiles. In theory, we signed a protocol prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The very same thing is happening now. The government puts on a show of being virtuous, but behind the scenes, it is finding ways to use these weapons. This kind of approach is dishonourable. If we do not want to use cluster munitions or be allied with countries that use cluster munitions, the simple answer is peace. We just do not participate in armed conflict with people who use these weapons. If we do so, we become accomplices.

One day we will have to face that fact. Just because the Americans go to war does not mean we have to be idiots and join them simply because the Conservatives think it is exciting.

It is not exciting to see Canadian soldiers die. It is not exciting for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have to kill people. Even less acceptable is when Canadian soldiers participate in military operations whose targets are primarily civilians. Peace is not built with weapons, but unfortunately, that is something we forget too often here.

Obviously, the NDP opposes Bill C-6, which allows for sly ways to use these unacceptable weapons. We want Canada to sign on fully to an agreement that has already been signed by several countries. That is what we want, and it is not unreasonable. Many countries that are U.S. allies have already done it. Being a U.S. ally does not necessarily mean being their underlings or their servants and finding that exciting. I will leave that to the government people.

So, naturally, the NDP believes that clause 11 has to go.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the lobby and I caught part of what my colleague was saying.

I will be on Juno Beach on June 6 next week, where thousands of Canadians apparently died like idiots. I have personally lost 35 friends to violent death in the service in flying accidents. They apparently died like idiots. There were 158 brave Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan who apparently died like idiots. We have had millions of Canadians who served in the cause of freedom, apparently like idiots. With those kinds of comments, I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

It makes me proud in a perverse kind of way that we can have a Parliament in a country where people can make comments like that, which are frankly beyond the pale. As well-meaning as I am sure they are, there are references, implications, or inferences to Canadians who served in uniform, any Canadians who fought for freedom of our country and countries that we have supported throughout our history over the last almost 150 years.

On the one hand, I am proud that we have a country where we are allowed to stand in this place and say such, frankly, idiotic things. On the other hand, it makes me sad that we have Canadians who have so little appreciation of what men and women in uniform have done for our country and for other countries throughout our history. I am extremely proud of those people. I am extremely proud of all those idiots, and I am extremely proud to have been one of those idiots.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the perfect example of an idiot. Dying for one's country and dying for freedom is one thing. Dying to allow imbeciles to say that they are allies of the Americans is another. I think it is sad that this individual considers himself a defender of our veterans. If he were truly a defender of Canadian veterans, then he would stop persecuting them and cutting their medical and other services. That would not be idiotic.

What we need here is to defend our country and our freedoms, not those of another and certainly not by using solutions that attack civilians.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand it is late and the member is emotional and tired, but he should apologize to my colleague for what he called him with regard to the word “idiot”. That is not appropriate parliamentary language and he should withdraw it and apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Prince Albert for his intervention. I would remind all hon. members that the use of this kind of language specifically to individual members, as is referenced in section 18 of the Standing Orders, invariably leads to the kind of discourse that we do not abide by in the House. We realize that emotions can get high on either side.

I recognize the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin made his comments in French and I may want to go back to hear exactly what was said and the context of how it was said.

One of the standard measures that we use for unparliamentary language is when it creates disorder. Clearly, in the context that the comment was offered in this case, it has created a certain amount of emotional response from the other side.

I wonder if the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin might wish to address the point.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for this House and especially for you. Your job is not easy and I believe we must support you at all times. I also think that my comments crossed the line.

I think the hon. member for Edmonton Centre deserves an apology, and I apologize to him.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, incongruent with the way we handled the situation with the land mine treaty, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that the loopholes within Bill C-6 are certainly not congruent with the way it used to be. Would he like to comment on that, plus the fact that there are other nations that seem to have closed these loopholes without us taking part in it in order to ratify this treaty?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the entire international community is trying to prevent the use of certain weapons: land mines, especially plastic ones that are undetectable and can be confused with toys; poison gas; and nuclear weapons. The international community is trying to limit those.

When we limit the use of a weapon, we do so totally and irrevocably. Cluster munitions are generally recognized for being dangerous and for unacceptably targeting civilian populations, but yet they are given a pass. That is what is unacceptable about this bill. Bill C-6 allows another exception. We publicly say that we are against these cluster munitions, but then we turn around and allow them to be used. That is precisely what the Conservatives did with the use of nuclear weapons, the Bomarc missiles and the Voodoo fighter jets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House this evening, despite the late hour. I would like to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

It is important to me to speak to this bill because I have a lot of reservations about its content. I plan to vote against Bill C-6 in its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement.

Here is some background on the horrific effects that cluster munitions can have on civilians. Essentially cluster munitions are a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapons that release or eject smaller submunitions. The submunitions can be as small as a D size battery or a tennis ball.

The reason these submunitions have such horrific effects is that their victims tend to be women and children. They tend to be civilians in a war zone or in a war situation. Moreover, unexploded submunitions essentially become landmines that can have devastating impacts on civilians many years after a conflict has ended. We have heard testimony from witnesses in committee about the devastating effects that cluster munitions can have on civilian populations.

Canada has 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 landmines.

Despite a strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada has succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowance in the convention. The main problems with Bill C-6, as my colleagues before me have mentioned, lie in clause 11, which is the most controversial part of the bill and which establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions.

In its original form, section 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or move cluster munitions when participating in combined military operations involving a state that is not a party to the convention, and to request the use of a cluster munition by another state's armed forces.

I had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which studied Bill C-6. I am proud to be part of the NDP team and to have worked with our foreign affairs critic, my colleague from Ottawa Centre, in supporting civilian organizations in Canada and abroad and in calling for amendments to the bill.

We talked to civilian organizations and worked with committee members. My colleague from Ottawa Centre worked with the government, hoping he could persuade it to expressly prohibit Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions. Unfortunately, the bill does not go far enough.

If Bill C-6 is not amended, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be very shallow. In fact, in its current form, this bill is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far.

Why is the bill problematic? It is problematic because it creates a dangerous precedent. In fact, it could even be detrimental to the convention internationally, in that the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

The Government of Canada is not taking the lead. Instead it is attempting to undermine international initiatives to ban the use of cluster munitions.

I would like to share some of the comments heard in committee. The witnesses are very critical and very clear on the government's position.

Malcolm Fraser, a former Australian prime minister 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.

I must also mention that I have never been so ashamed about the government's position on international commitments as when I went to Durban a few years again when the government withdrew from the Kyoto protocol. That is another example of how the government operates and negotiates. It is acting in bad faith towards the international community.

Unfortunately, that is the Conservative government's way of doing things. Consequently, we have become the laughing stock of the international community.

I would like to read some more testimony into the record, and this comes from Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada. He said:

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

Earl Turcotte, who is a former senior coordinator for mine action at DFAIT and was also the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, said the following:

...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.

The important thing to stress is the issue of trust and the very real issue that the Conservative government is slowly eroding the trust that our international partners have in our ability and our willingness to support things like human rights and climate change negotiations internationally.

The Conservative government has also fallen short in other areas. Just today in the House of Commons during question period I was able to question the Conservative government on the signing of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The government has refused to join all of our NATO allies in signing the UN Arms Trade Treaty and has loosened restrictions on arms exports.

I believe that Canadians expect better from the Canadian government. Canadians expect the government to play a leadership role and to strengthen the convention rather than propose measures such as Bill C-6 that undermine the principles of the convention.

I would like to repeat that we are opposed to the bill as presented and, although we were able to obtain one amendment during committee that the Conservatives worked together with us to implement, it is an insufficient amendment to allow us to support the bill.

I believe without question that clause 11 needs to be eliminated from the bill in order to obtain my support and in order to obtain the support of my party. The NDP and our critic have proposed to delete the clause from the bill before it passes report stage.

Of course, we all decry the horrific effects of cluster munitions, but when it comes to real action, to strengthening our position on the international stage, and to reinforcing human rights around the world, I would invite all of my colleagues in this House to join with me in calling for clause 11 to be deleted from Bill C-6.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for her excellent speech.

She gave a good explanation of why we cannot support the bill in its current form. That is why the Conservatives must keep an open mind. They must understand that these amendments would ensure that the convention protects the people to whom these munitions pose a threat, that is civilians. I would like to point out that civilians suffer 98% of all injuries caused by cluster munitions. Women, children and people who have nothing to do with the conflict, but who unfortunately are caught in the crossfire, are the victims of these cluster munitions. Therefore, it is very important for Canada's reputation that this bill ban the use of these munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Does my colleague believe, as I do, that it is vital that we remove clause 11 to have this bill reflect the Convention on Cluster Munitions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We cannot accept this bill unless clause 11 is removed. I quoted several witnesses who appeared before the committee in support of our position. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that clause 11 would authorize activities undermining the purpose of the CCM and would contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.

To me, that speaks volumes. The Canadian Red Cross believes that Bill C-6 will contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions. That is certainly not what the House intends. I think that all MPs should work to eliminate the use of cluster bombs given their devastating impact on women, children and innocent people. We have to stop using these weapons as soon as possible.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question.

One of the things we noted missing in Bill C-6 are obligations that are outlined in the convention. Not thoroughly addressed are obligations including stockpile destruction, transparency reports, working to universalize the convention and promote its norms, notifying allies of convention obligations, and discouraging the use of cluster munitions.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on those glaring omissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the committee looked at other ways to improve this bill. We talked about prohibiting investment in companies that produce cluster bombs. Other countries have done that. Civil society organizations told us that we had to get rid of clause 11. I have to emphasize how big a problem this clause is. I know we can do something else. Some countries have gone even further to eliminate the use of cluster bombs.

The essential thing now is for all members of the House to come together to eliminate clause 11 from Bill C-6.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not rehash everything my colleagues have said about the fact that clause 11 is not necessary. In truth, not only is it not necessary, but it distorts the very spirit of this bill, which has a certain logic in the context of a convention.

This reminds me of the conversations we had about Bill S-9 at the time, on the convention on nuclear material and everything related to that.

I am not going to repeat my colleague's arguments. Instead I would like to quote some of the things that were said in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development during the studies. Take for example the rather interesting testimony of General Natynczyk:

If we had to enforce article 21 of the convention, the exceptions listed in clause 11 of Bill C-6 would protect our men and women in uniform against prosecution, because they would have simply been carrying out their military duties.

We can understand the government's reluctance, relayed by General Natynczyk, who, I would remind the House, was the Chief of the Defence Staff until a few years ago. There is the fear that one day our soldiers will be faced with the prospect of having to explain why they took part in the use of cluster munitions.

That just shows to what extent Canada should be taking a leadership position in defending the rights of the most vulnerable. We know that these weapons in particular attack mainly civilians and children. It was General Natynczyk who pointed that out to us at that same committee meeting:

I spent my time in Bosnia and Croatia in 1994-95 and I saw the indiscriminate effects of landmines on civilians tilling their fields, children playing near schools, our own Canadian men and women and allied United Nations soldiers who attempted to bring peace and security to those troubled countries.

There is a contradiction in General Natynczyk's testimony. On the one hand he said he witnessed the catastrophic consequences for children and civilians but, on the other hand, he supports clause 11 because our serving men and women would never have to account for using these terrible weapons, which are totally and utterly senseless because they target primarily civilians and children.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that some of what I have heard tonight from the government during this debate makes me very uneasy. Here we are in the safety of Canada, talking about instruments of war, which quite simply are devastating. In some ways, the debate feels surreal.

As a nation, we took a position, in December 2008. We said, along with 113 other countries, that it was time to end the brutal legacy of cluster munitions and to launch a process to prohibit these weapons, to remove them from the face of the earth. They cause unacceptable harm to armed forces personnel and unspeakable harm to civilians. The reason I say this has to do with the impact of these weapons on human beings.

I began by saying how uneasy I felt and how surreal this discussion is, when it is academic, here in the safe comfort of this House, and when members of this House say we have to be prepared to accept the necessary evil of cluster munitions because our American allies have stockpiled them. However, before we rationalize the position taken by the Conservative government in Bill C-6, I think it is essential to understand what cluster munitions are and what they do.

We are talking about an imprecise weapon that is designed to strike a greater surface area than many other conventional weapons by dispersing smaller but still very lethal submunitions. They are scattered around the ground, and these submunitions create an incredibly large footprint. Within that footprint, they kill and injure both military personnel and civilians.

Up to one quarter of these submunitions fail to explode on impact, but that does not make them any less dangerous. In Lebanon, during the 2006-07 conflict, there were at least 555 recorded cluster munitions casualties in Lebanon, of whom 122 were killed and 433 injured. Children made up 24% of the casualties, most of them young boys, and many of them under the age of 18.

These recorded totals do not include up to 175 unconfirmed cluster munition casualties during or shortly after the conflict. The unexploded ordinance continued to kill. For several months after the conflict, people could not go back into their homes because of these failed submunitions. They littered their homes and littered the area. In the longer term, a larger percent of casualties occurred to farmers while they were trying to farm, herd animals, or carry out other livelihood activities.

In addition to the loss of life and the economic damage, cluster munitions exact a high psychosocial and educational cost. Populations suffer psychological trauma long after the initial event.

However, Lebanon is not the only place where these weapons have been used. Cluster munitions are a worldwide generational problem. They have been used in 24 countries in areas, and their use is suspected in at least a dozen more. Cluster munitions have been deployed in Syria, Iraq, Israel, and are thought to have been used in Afghanistan.

Again, the victims are children who are playing outdoors, pedestrians walking down the street, workers pressing olive oil, and even families in their homes. These weapons kill indiscriminately. Casualties and deaths are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands since 2006. We also know that 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded as a result of land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices.

These are the weapons that pull human beings apart. In response to this, the Norwegian government invited 48 states, as well as the UN and civil society groups, to Oslo, to start a process towards an international ban. At the end of the meeting, 46 governments supported a declaration for a new international treaty, and a ban by 2008.

That declaration stated that a legally binding international instrument would be agreed upon by 2008, and it would “prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.”

In 2008, Canada signed that convention, and the current government tabled that agreement in the House of Commons, in December 2012. That brings me to the debate tonight.

Canada, at this moment, has the opportunity to show leadership on the world stage by showing a real commitment to the Oslo Convention. Unfortunately, the sticking point revolves around clause 11 of Bill C-6. This clause relates to the issue of interoperability which, as part of the original convention, allows countries like Canada that do not manufacture, stockpile, or use cluster munitions to be in a theatre of war with nations that have not signed the convention, such as China, Russia, and the United States.

Unfortunately, Bill C-6 goes beyond even the interoperability allowed in the convention. Clause 11 establishes an extremely broad list of exceptions. The fear expressed by some who opposed the language in clause 11 was that this article permits direct complicity in the use of banned weapons. Imagine Canada being complicit in the use of banned weapons?

In other words, clause 11 allows Canadian Armed Forces to be in a theatre where cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty. If we were in the theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not be in joint operations with them while they were using those particular armaments.

The bill before us is void in that respect. There is a loophole, which basically says that we can be in joint operations in the theatre where one of our allies is using these munitions. This works against the whole notion and spirit of the convention.

As my colleagues on this side of the House have indicated, experts have expressed reservations. On the other side, members are not hearing; they are not listening. They are not, for all intents and purposes, even participating, except for the odd heckle and outburst.

On this side of the House, we have listened to the experts who have reservations. Dr. Walter Dorn, of the Royal Military College, said:

Who would want Canadians to use cluster munitions, aid and abet, direct or request their use, or conspire with another person to use these indiscriminate weapons? Yet this wording is in the legislation itself to allow the so-called cooperation with a non-party, which we know to be aimed at the possible cooperation with the United States.

As I said, it is against the spirit of the treaty and the letter of the treaty.

Dr. Marc Drolet, of Handicap International, said:

Bill C-6 should be strengthened to ensure that everything possible is done to promote the spirit and achieve the purpose of the Oslo Convention. [...] As currently drafted, the bill could, paradoxically, very well contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than their elimination as intended.

As I said at the outset, cluster munitions are weapons that are designed to tear human beings apart. This Conservative legislation to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and the worst in the world. It undermines everything that we should be standing to implement.

We are going to push the Conservatives to further amend Bill C-6 and ensure Canada's humanitarian reputation is not tarnished by this weak legislation. Canadians should not ever be complicit in the continued use of these horrific weapons.

We are better than that. This nation is better than that. I implore the government to understand that Canadians want to be seen as those who understand the Oslo Convention, who understand that we have a place, a possibility, an obligation, to make this convention work. It will not be with Bill C-6 and clause 11, but here in this House, through listening and co-operation, we can do it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with interest. They keep saying that we are not participating in the debate. I am not sure what the heck I have been doing here for the last three hours, except doing that. Yes, there has been some heckling, in both directions. That is a feature of this place. However, we certainly have been debating it. Also, we gave a number of speeches during the last time this item was up for debate.

They have complained about not having enough time to debate it. We have given them five hours tonight. Like I said, they can debate their hearts out. If there were something new in each speech, that would be something, but the speeches are pretty repetitive, for the most part. However, that is okay. They should not be surprised when we ask the same kinds of questions.

The member talked about joint operations. I will point out that we did joint ops in Afghanistan, as she knows, with U.S. forces who were authorized to use land mines. There is a clause in the land mine treaty that allows us to do that, the same way that clause 11 in this treaty would allow us to do those kinds of operations in conjunction with the United States forces.

I will point out that all weapons of war are horrid. All weapons of war are designed to tear humans apart. That is regrettably what weapons do. Some do it by different methods, and so on.

However, we are already in joint operations with the Americans under the land mine treaty, with the same kind of clause that permits that. How is that different from this?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Conservatives have had no speakers. They have had no one stand up to provide anything but an across-the-House volley of interruptions and non sequiturs. I am afraid that does not constitute debate. There should be a give and take. There should be a clear and logical analysis of Bill C-6 and the rationale behind clause 11. From our perspective, it is extremely problematic.

He said that we have been in theatres with those who use objectionable weapons. We are better than that. We signed this Oslo Convention, in 2008. We signed it, I assume in good faith, with the intention of ratifying it, with the intention of showing the world that we could set aside these kinds of weapons, yet here we are with clause 11 in the bill, making excuses, undermining, deluding, and not living up to who we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative members in this House are not debating tonight, we are certainly getting a lot of points made repeatedly, such as those made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

For my friend from London—Fanshawe, the claim has been made repeatedly in debate this evening that the exact language was used in the anti-land mines law as is used in Bill C-6. That is not correct.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I did not say that.

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

That is what I heard, Mr. Speaker. If the member for Edmonton Centre could wait a moment, I have heard him say repeatedly in this House that the same language was used.

In fact, the language is very different. The language that is used in the anti-land mine convention and the law that was passed by this House, says the following:

participation in operations, exercises or other military activities with the armed forces of a state that is not a party to the Convention that engage in an activity prohibited under the subsection...if that participation does not amount to active assistance in that prohibited activity.

The question would be, if I were able to put a question to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, is that if the same language were good enough for the anti-land mine convention, why did we not use that language in the cluster munitions law?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I can speculate about why the change is here, but I am afraid the government has to answer for that. Unfortunately, it has refused to do so. It is not putting up speakers; it is not explaining its rationale.

All I can say, and all I can see, is the advice from experts, who are very concerned about the lack of solid and worthwhile language in Bill C-6.

We can change this. We can fix this. It is not too late. We can go back and work through the legislation and make it what it needs to be, for all of our sakes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to join my voice to those of my official opposition colleagues.

We are opposed to Bill C-6 under its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. That is unfortunate. We proposed amendments to the bill at committee stage, but, true to form, the Conservatives allowed just one small change. We are again trying to amend the bill at report stage, but if the government does not agree to further improve the content, then we will have no choice but to oppose it.

In November 2013, the NDP called on the government to amend Bill C-6. According to lawyers, representatives of other countries and groups from civil society, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the new legislation would seriously hinder the implementation of the treaty. The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is largely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world. It undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created. These inhumane and cruel weapons must be banned. The Canadian legislation allows Canadian soldiers to continue to use these cluster munitions. It is unbelievable.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to develop 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. This treaty was very successful and we are very proud of it. I am talking about the treaty to ban land mines. We built on that treaty in order to rid the world of the horrific weapons known as cluster munitions. The convention was signed by 118 countries, which is significant since that represents more than three-quarters of the UN member states. A total of 84 countries ratified it. When the Dublin process and Oslo process negotiations were complete, we implemented a convention that was important in terms of disarmament and ridding the world of these horrific munitions.

The NDP fully supported the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. This bill undermines the convention it is supposed to implement. That is unfortunate. We oppose this bill as it now stands. In committee, we worked hard to improve it with civil society groups. Even if the amendment the Conservatives allowed is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support this bill. At this stage, the best thing to do would be to completely remove clause 11 from the bill, which is what we are proposing.

I would like to quote the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In their opinion, clause 11 would permit:

...activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been criticized by many experts and those who strongly believe in ridding the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other provisions. Clause 11 allows the Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not participate in joint operations with them while they were using those particular weapons.

This bill has a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre when one of our allies is using cluster munitions. That is unacceptable

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and were able to convince it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Unfortunately, there remain flaws in the bill. If they are not corrected, Canada will only be able to superficially honour its commitment to ban cluster munitions. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention internationally, in that the withdrawal options and exemptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

Canada should show more leadership and meet its commitments. The government has shown its lack of vision in other matters as well. In this regard, I will quote Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian prime minister:

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.

I would like to remind the House that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians, innocent people, mostly children. That is why the world wanted to ban these munitions. Why is the government trying to destroy these efforts?

Moreover, in 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster munitions, and other explosive devices. Children and adults were maimed and killed by these weapons. We have wanted to get rid of cluster munitions for a long time.

The bill was also condemned by Earl Turcotte, the head of the DFAIT delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned a few years later in protest against the Conservative government's watered-down version of the convention. Mr. Turcotte said that the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date.

Why is the government refusing to hear what the experts have to say? It is not the first time we have seen that. It is like déjà vu. On several key issues, the government turns a deaf ear. In this case, though, human lives are at stake, which is why I feel that the government should work constructively to amend the bill.

In an open letter published last year, Mr. Turcotte stated that the bill betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated the treaty in good faith. I want to conclude by quoting from an article by Marc Thibodeau in La Presse on June 15, 2013:

After playing a leading role in the fight against landmines, Canada is now being chastised for not fulfilling its commitments in the current campaign to get rid of cluster munitions.

In the same article, Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, says that there are no logical reasons to explain why Ottawa would act this way. He thinks that “the situation is tarnishing Canada's reputation as a leader on humanitarian issues”.

He really gets at the heart of what is becoming a very palpable reality: Canada's international reputation. We have to stop playing and start acting. We need to take a leadership role so that innocent people are no longer killed. We have a job to do. We can resolve this right now. We are here until midnight and we are trying to use this time to have a proper debate.

As was mentioned earlier, we are the only party taking part in tonight's debate. There is still time to amend the bill and delete clause 11. I am confident that we will be able to do something good with this bill.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear something up.

I think there was a translation problem earlier when I talked about Bosnia. I never said that we used cluster munitions. What I said was that when officers came back from Bosnia and talked about their experience over there, none of them was thrilled about the prospect of using cluster munitions.

Does my hon. colleague think that people who join the Canadian Armed Forces are comfortable with the idea of using weapons that could kill civilians and children 5, 10 or 20 years after their mission in that country is over? Does she think that officers and sergeants would be interested in using such weapons?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and comments. This bill is really important, and Canada can take the lead on this issue.

It is hard to believe that six years after signing this treaty, we are here until midnight with almost no one else around, since the official opposition is the only party taking part in tonight's debate. We have to remember that lives are at stake. The victims are often very vulnerable people, civilians and mostly children. As a mother, I feel we can do a lot to improve this bill. It is not too late. However, we seem to be dealing with a rather thick-headed government that is not willing to acknowledge that it may have erred and that we can do better.

I am no expert in cluster munitions, but after reading the documentation and following the recent debates here in the House and in committee, I know that we can truly improve on the bill by deleting clause 11, and we would be saving lives.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches this evening from NDP members. One thing that strikingly is becoming more and more obvious is how repetitive the speeches are. I am of the impression that they have the exact same speech in the back on their computers and they change a few words, use the thesaurus and repeat the same things over and over.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

We're talking about the same thing.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You've just repeated yourself in 10 seconds.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

What is interesting to note at this point, Mr. Speaker, is to hear the members opposite heckling, and boy have they been heckling tonight. Some of the words that have come out of their mouths have been totally unbelievable.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she has actually read the bill, or did she just take the speech from the back and bring it up to the front and read it again? The words that she uttered in her speech, Mr. Speaker, are almost identical to speeches we have heard from every member of the NDP who has spoken this evening. We all know the heckling we hear is coming from the NDP.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time is limited. I will send the question over to the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member has been listening to our speeches. I hope he will take into consideration some of what we have said because it is important. I am sad that he finds it is repetitive. He is frustrated by the fact that we are stating the facts. If he is so frustrated, then, why does he not get on his feet and speak to the bill. He still has time. You could give a 10-minute speech like I just did. You have the right to do it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of time for this intervention. It is rather illustrative of the fact as to why our conventions compel members to direct their comments to the Chair. This helps the conversation to be less personal and invariably lessens the possibility of disorder in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-6.

This is a situation we know all too well in Canada. In order for an international treaty to be enshrined in Canadian law, an implementation act is required, and that is what we have before us tonight.

The issue with countries operating under the dualist model is that the implementation act could be undermined by weaknesses, omissions or even ill will. Unfortunately, we have heard time and time again that this bill is undermined by ill will. The government is deliberately misusing the process whereby international rules are incorporated into Canadian law.

We have already debated this bill, since the Senate introduced a previous version. At the time, the NDP had some concerns about the fact that it originated in the other place. However, I will refrain from launching into a tirade against the legitimacy of legislation that originates in the red chamber.

At first glance, it seems to me that every effort made by the government in terms of international relations tends to turn sour. It seems that the Conservatives could not care less about our relations with the international community.

To hell with other countries if they do not think much of Canada. Before the Conservatives start bragging again about their wide-ranging trade policies, they should ask themselves if other countries will want to trade with a country that behaves in such a cavalier and arrogant way.

Bill C-6 is very important. Unfortunately, the government waited too long before introducing a bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I am not the only one who sees the major flaws in this bill. As it is, without any amendment, the bill would render Canada's signature on the convention null and void, simply because our law would not faithfully reflect the content of this treaty. We would clearly be renouncing our international obligations in front of the whole world.

The international community is aware of the efforts made by countries to enforce international laws and now sees Canada as a country that does not do the bare minimum. Clearly, this bill must be amended in order to make sure that it is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of the convention.

I would like to talk about the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty that has been signed by 118 countries—three-quarters of the UN member states—and ratified by 84 countries. The Ottawa treaty to ban land mines as well as the Dublin and Oslo negotiation processes laid the groundwork for a treaty such as this one to put an end to the horror of cluster munitions.

These weapons are extremely difficult to detect and disarm. They are tiny and often look like small objects that have been left behind in conflict zones. We can imagine the many victims, both adults and children, who survive but end up suffering and living with serious injuries caused by these weapons. It is disgusting to think that people could have conceived or produced these ghastly weapons, that companies could have distributed and sold them, and that countries could have authorized and ordered their use. The fact that countries continue to support their use is even worse.

Fortunately, the international community is trying to put an end to inhumanity. There have been a lot of consultations. The work done at the United Nations bodies in Geneva and Vienna is absolutely crucial and important. We mentioned the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines. The work done every year as part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is also invaluable, and Canada has always played an important role in the work of these organizations.

I mention this because I think it is very important to remember that Canada used to be an undisputed leader on these issues, and today, as I will point out later, a number of international experts are looking at Canada and wondering what is going on with us. Where is the logic behind these absolutely ridiculous policies? Once again, I do not understand the government's logic.

Let us get back to the subject of this bill. Cluster munitions were used for the first time during the Second World War. They were used until recently in countries like Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq. These weapons indiscriminately strike all those who happen to be in their range. The non-explosion rate of these munitions makes them particularly dangerous and horrifying. Thirty per cent of all cluster munitions do not explode when they hit the ground. Therefore, they could explode whenever a civilian gets near them, even years or decades later.

Civilians make up 98% of the victims of these weapons, and 40% of the civilian victims are children. Obviously, this is shocking and appalling. We are not talking here about injuries that last a lifetime; we are not talking about the material losses often inflicted on the poorest families that are already ravaged by war; we are not talking about the destruction of homes or the contamination of land used for agriculture; we are talking about the destruction of families, countries, economies and human lives.

In 2008, Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It was only natural to do so, given the fact we have always been in favour of disarmament and of monitoring the use of conventional weapons and considering the humanitarian commitment behind our signature internationally, that is, up until now.

At that point, Canada made a commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, sell, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. It also made a commitment to destroy all cluster munitions in its possession within eight years.

By signing the 2008 convention, Canada also agreed to help victims of cluster munitions and support other signatories to the treaty. It was also to take all the necessary legislative measures to have the text adopted in its domestic law. That is what we expected the bill to do.

The NDP rejoiced when Canada became a party to the convention. However, we see tonight, with much sadness and puzzlement, that the government is choosing to shirk its responsibilities under the treaty.

It is choosing to act that way even though we offered to work with the government and suggest amendments, among other things, so that Canada could implement the convention effectively, as it promised to do in 2008.

Becoming a signatory to a convention is only the first step. Once an agreement has been reached and the convention has been signed, it needs to be implemented, which requires a bill like this one.

The bill we have before us, however, does not meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-6 is roundly criticized by experts as well as by those who believe that children and civilians should not be exposed to such weaponry.

Clause 11 allows Canadian soldiers to engage in operations where cluster munitions are used. We were fully compliant in the case of the Ottawa convention, which prohibits Canadian soldiers from being in theatre with non-signatory states. We were forbidden from participating in joint operations with states that use those weapons. Today, Canada is reversing its position in front of the whole world and agreeing to participate in operations in which cluster munitions are used. The decision is as inexplicable as it is worrisome.

Legitimizing the use of these weapons and the states that use them goes against both the spirit and the letter of the convention. Clause 11 authorizes Canada and a state that is not a party to the convention to use, acquire, possess, import or export cluster munitions. This flies in the face of the convention. The government's intentions are unequivocal, and it has made no attempt to obscure them. It is trying to circumvent a treaty that bans the use of some of the weapons most lethal to civilians around the world.

If we are to play a vital, valued role in promoting international peace, we need to make sure that this treaty meets international requirements when it is enshrined in Canadian law. That role was a Canadian tradition that many Quebeckers were proud to be part of, whether as diplomats or statesmen.

The convention clearly requires that we completely rid ourselves of these weapons and refrain from using them if we are in a conflict zone or theatre of operations where they are being used. That is the commitment we made when we signed this agreement. It is there in black and white.

We can say that we do not have these weapons and that we will destroy them, but as long as we do not embrace this particular notion of not using them at all, we are not meeting our international obligations under this convention.

Numerous people have said as much. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross said that clause 11 was not consistent with the purpose and the object of the convention. To quote them:

[It] would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.

The parliamentary committee also heard from former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who is an international disarmament expert:

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.

Our amendments were specifically designed to change this bill so that it would be in line with such extremely important opinions and comply with international law.

Instead, the Conservatives are hurting Canada's reputation. It is shocking and shameful. I urge them to change their strategy, if only to preserve our international reputation.

Do they care about that?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was among the foremost countries advocating a ban on the use of gas on battlefields, while Syria used it last year.

Canada was at the forefront of nuclear disarmament efforts. Canada does not have nuclear weapons, but these weapons still exist. Canada championed the ban on land mines, but these mines still exist.

Is the member across the way telling us that banning cluster munitions will not be a major step forward in strengthening international security and protecting civilians caught in conflicts?

Does the member believe in our alliances at all? Does he believe that we must remain an important ally among NATO countries? Does he think that the United States must remain our ally, yes or no?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my colleague for his question. Of course, I am certainly not as knowledgeable as he is about international issues. I can tell you right off the bat that we can certainly see that this—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

What were you saying? I cannot see—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

It is important that all members direct their comments to the Speaker.

The member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher still has the floor.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask those who have the nerve to grunt like a one-eyed monster to address the Speaker from time to time.

I was trying to provide an intelligent answer to an intelligent question. Essentially, what I was trying to say is that there are people on that team who have their brains in the right place, but unfortunately there are many others who have made their intention clear. My mother always said that what counts is intentions. When I hear people simply hammering the idea that Canada is not a pacifist country, then it is clear to see what their intentions are. I rest my case.

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

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

As we have been saying since the beginning of the debates on Bill C-6, it is clear that this situation is significantly tarnishing Canada's international reputation.

It is like someone giving their word and not keeping it. That is what we are doing if you consider clause 11 of Bill C-6. I must say that I am overcome by the fact that the government is minimizing the impact of these cluster munitions, which, whether the government likes it or not, kill children, women and civilians who have nothing to do with any army or with people involved in the military.

That is what we are talking about this evening. This truly goes to show that when it comes to a convention, applying it in a way that is inconsistent with what we signed on to, makes no sense.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her informed comments.

We have to speak with a view to representing our constituents as much as possible. I am sure that everyone here was elected by people who are generally satisfied with their representation. Accordingly, I expect there to be a real parliamentary debate. It is indeed a shame to see that Canada's international reputation does not seem to matter much to the people across the way, or certainly not enough for them to take the floor and defend this bill.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not shocked and dismayed, because the Conservatives behave this way almost all the time.

The first thing I want to say is, is this really the single, most important thing that is facing Canada right now? The government decides that issues of trade with Panama, with Honduras, with Colombia are the most important thing and therefore we need to limit debate so we cannot talk about it any longer.

The Conservatives have done the same thing with the bill. They have decided that we are not going to talk about this anymore. They are done talking. In fact, members opposite are done talking completely. They have decided that their constituents' voices have now been heard by the bill, and that all of the members opposite, all of their constituents, how many of them voted for them, are now in possession of the complete truth, the facts, and everything else about the bill and there is no need to express their views. There is no need for those members opposite to express the wishes of their constituents, because the bill does that for them. Therefore they do not need to talk about what their constituents might be saying to them. I think their constituents might be saying a lot. They certainly are to me.

Canada is a peaceful country. It always has been. When war happens and sometimes in faraway places, Canada responds to war efforts by other countries that require our assistance, World War I, World War II, Korea. We have been, regrettably, in Afghanistan. There were a number of Canadians soldiers who did not come back alive. In each of those circumstances, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, we were doing something for the greater good.

We are now suggesting, through kind of a sideways glance and loophole in a bill, that it is okay to kill and maim children, women, and other civilians who have no part in a war, that it is okay by our inaction on the bill, to build weapons and to use them, not by Canada, but by our allies, in theatres of war. Canadians can join in this war, Canadian soldiers can be part, wherever this war takes place. Our allies cannot expect Canada to tell them we are not going unless they stop using these particular weapons.

That is what we on this side of the House want to have happen. That is what we on this side of the House believe that my constituents want Canada to stand for. We want Canada to stand for the creation of a peaceful planet, not one where women and children have to fear that bombs will drop on them from the sky, and tiny bombs at that, bombs that are not designed as a weapon of war, but as a weapon of destruction of civilians.

The U.S. has become really good with their little drones that can go out and pick off an individual who happens to be a leader in another country. Maybe that is where weapons of war are going, to the individual hit, but this cluster munition is not a weapon of war. It is a weapon of destroying as many lives as it can. We might as well say that biological weapons are okay or chemical weapons are okay, as long as it is somebody else using them. As long as we are just beside them and somebody else is using them, then it is okay to use them. We will participate. We will join in with allies who use these things.

I do not think my constituents want me to take that position. I do not believe that this side of the House can support a bill that allows that to take place. It does not do everything, including refusing to stand alongside a country, even if we agree with the fight, if they intend to use these, if they have not signed this treaty.

We have, over the past century probably, discovered ways to kill people that we did not know of before, and we have used them in war. We are a pretty sophisticated species, we human beings. We have decided to put rules around war that limit the destruction to those involved in the war. Killing soldiers is okay. Killing children is not.

I am not going to get into a philosophical debate about whether war is good, bad, or indifferent, but we have developed a number of treaties and conventions over the past century or so that limit damage to civilians secondary to the cause of the war itself. There is a whole great long list of them.

There is the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that is designed to prevent one side from developing ways of stopping nuclear weapons from raining down on them, the Arms Trade Treaty that Canada refused to sign, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which is the one we are talking about now.

There is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Mine Ban Treaty, otherwise known as the Ottawa treaty, because Canada had a lot to do with developing that treaty and actually hosted the convention. We saw land mines as being such a cruel and unusual form of conducting a war that we wanted the rest of the world to agree that land mines should be banned.

There is the Missile Technology Control Regime, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, the Outer Space Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. There are about 15 more that have to do with nuclear weapons, which have been used on this planet, much to the shame of some of the scientists who discovered what they had developed.

We on this side of the House believe, as I think many in the rest of the world do, that if there are wars, we should limit the damage by those wars. Most wars nowadays are over oil, but most wars are over somebody's decision about where a boundary should be, as is going on currently in the Ukraine, where one country has decided to quietly feed a bunch of weapons to another group of people who want to take a piece of that country and move the boundary. War should not include the kinds of weapons that destroy lives without regard for the fact of whether a person is wearing a uniform or not. We on this side of the House believe that those kinds of weapons do not belong in anything that Canada does with its soldiers, period, end of story.

There is a personal message from my side of the House. My wife's cousin, who is a medical professional in Edmonton, has had first-hand experience with the effects of these munitions in third world countries. His job is to build prosthetics. He has spent several years of his life on the other side of the planet teaching doctors and others how to build prosthetics for children and how to keep growing those prosthetics as the children grow. It is a very sad, awful thing to have to do, but that is the effect of weapons like this. The effect is that children grow up without limbs and children need prosthetics in countries that do not have a lot of money to begin with. Are we sending prosthetics to these countries? No. Are we accepting refugees from these countries? Sometimes, but it is very difficult to get a straight answer out of the current minister on how many.

In general, we are glad that the Conservatives have actually agreed to ratify this treaty, but we hope that they would agree with us to remove the giant loopholes that we could drive a tank through and agree that our job should be to limit, not be a party to, the use of these weapons.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for making the points he did. Because I do not see members of the opposition who are at committee, they may be unfamiliar with some of the nuances of the legislation, and the member made some errors. I would like to correct a couple of them.

One thing that needs to be made clear is that at committee, every party in this House opposed cluster munitions and the use of them at any point in any place. Words like “despicable” and “abhorrent” were used by all of us to describe these weapons and what they do. There was no one in that room who was in favour of using cluster munitions at any point in any place.

I should point out that Canadian troops have never used them and never intend to use them. Some of our allies, the United States in particular, have not signed the convention. That leaves an issue, because we have interoperability agreements with the United States, which means that our soldiers have to serve with theirs. The only exception made in this bill is to allow our soldiers to work alongside U.S. soldiers and not be caught in a situation where they are held liable for something they are not responsible for. Earlier today the minister used the example of Canadian soldiers who would fill a plane with fuel not knowing that cluster munitions were in that plane.

There are not giant loopholes in this bill. This bill has been put together to protect Canadian troops and to make clear our opposition to cluster munitions. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the fact that nobody in the House wants anyone to use cluster munitions. What we are opposed to is the suggestion that we are not doing everything in our power, including refusing to have an interoperability agreement with a country that uses them. That is the step we are willing to take that the Conservatives are not.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the type of debate we have been having here in the House tonight was pretty evident just a minute ago when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness came out of the lobby, yelled out a few insults, and went back inside. There has to be something in the water on that side of the House, and it is not chlorine. I do not know what it is.

The Conservatives have been saying all night that the speeches are the same, but we are talking about Bill C-6. They have to be the same. We would like to be discussing pensions. We would like to be discussing poverty, but we are discussing cluster bombs.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. If some major miracle were to happen, which would have to come from the PMO, and a Conservative were to get up and make a speech on this bill, what questions would he ask the member?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the opportunity to ask members opposite questions on this, but they apparently do not want to get up and give us that opportunity.

If I did have the opportunity, I would ask if they were prepared to further amend the bill. The bill is flawed as it is now. It is, in the words of some, the worst implementation in the world of this cluster munitions treaty by any country that has signed it. We think it can be hugely improved, particularly in clause 11. I would ask the government opposite if it would be willing to consider thoughtful, reasoned amendments, including, perhaps, the ability of Canada to refuse, as we did on Iraq, to go to war with some of our partners if it meant being alongside a partner that was using cluster munitions.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite late. We are here again this evening debating an important bill—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. There is too much noise in the House. The hon. member for Québec.

It is necessary to have order in the House. We only really have one more speaking slot to go before the end of the time allocated for this debate. I would encourage all hon. members to yield the floor to the hon. member for Québec.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are doing good work, because we often get the impression that the members opposite do not hear us. Thank you for calling them to order so that we can have a constructive debate.

Throughout the evening, my NDP colleagues have been contributing to the debate and asking the government opposite to examine this bill more closely. However, my colleagues were the only ones who spoke tonight. We want the voices of civil society and the various organizations affected to be heard.

We are here to talk about Bill C-6. It makes sense that we are not talking about other subjects that I am passionate about, such as tourism and the need for investments in that area, consumer protection, and the environment and climate change. There are many interesting subjects.

However, we are here to debate Bill C-6. The House is sitting this late in the evening precisely to discuss this issue, namely, the 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. That is really the key element. The Conservatives are going against the spirit of the convention by not agreeing to make the necessary amendments, as proposed by members of civil society, the NDP and the opposition in general. We should be hearing that they will agree.

We attempted to amend the bill at committee, but the Conservatives allowed only one small change. They did not make the necessary changes to the bill. This evening, we are once again trying to amend the bill at report stage.

If the government continues to ignore us and continues to fail to use its speaking time to respond to the points we are raising tonight in the House, obviously no progress will be made and we will get home quite late.

The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as the weakest and, to be honest, the worst in the world. It clearly undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created.

This is not the first time the Conservatives have humiliated us on the international scene. The memory of the Kyoto protocol, which they up and ditched, is still fresh, as is the memory of the UN Security Council seat that we did not get because they failed to convey how important it was. They have made many mistakes. For example, the Conservatives rushed a whole bunch of free trade agreements through. They care a lot more about the number of agreements than about the quality of those agreements. To us, quality is important because those agreements are here to stay. It is important to do things right so they do not have to be redone and so we do not suffer the consequences.

The NDP collaborated with Canadian and international civil society groups to persuade the government to prohibit the use of cluster bombs by Canadian soldiers. The bill still contains a number of dangerous and useless legislative gaps. Bill C-6 has that in common with many other bills: loopholes you could drive a truck through.

The NDP will continue to put pressure on the Conservatives to amend Bill C-6, and that is why we are sitting so late tonight. We want to ensure that Canada's humanitarian and peaceful reputation is not tarnished by this very weak and mediocre bill.

Cluster bombs eject hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area very quickly. They have devastating effects on civilians that can last several years after the end of a conflict.

What we do now will have consequences for generations to come. As a young MP, that matters to me. My children and grandchildren will be affected. This is important, and we cannot treat this issue lightly.

It is important to understand the importance of our role here and the responsibilities we have for ensuring that generations to come have a better and much more certain future than the one that is facing us right now.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process that led to the drafting of a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process was initiated to take advantage of the success of the Ottawa Treaty to ban land mines. The United States, China and Russia did not participate in the process and are continuing to stockpile cluster munitions. In spite of strong opposition from a majority of the participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada was able to negotiate the inclusion of an article in the final text of the convention that expressly allowed for ongoing military interoperability with states that are not parties to the convention, namely article 21.

Bill C-6 is not only about that interoperability article. The main problem actually lies in clause 11, as we know, which proposes a list of very vague exceptions, creating the legal uncertainty I mentioned. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers 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 that they be used by the armed forces of another country.

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign civil society organizations calling for the bill to be amended. As I will explain a little later, those calls are supported by many organizations on the ground. We also worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and we were able to persuade it to expressly prohibit Canadian soldiers from using cluster munitions. When you care about our troops, you do not turn your back on them. You are there for them, you defend them and you do not let them put their lives in danger. That is important.

Unfortunately, there are still other flaws. If they are not rectified, Canada’s implementation of its commitment against cluster munitions will be rather superficial. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even be detrimental to the convention and give us a bad reputation on the world stage, in that the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries. We do not want a precedent that taints our reputation. We have paid dearly for that reputation over the years of our history.

In its current form, this bill is the least restrictive of all the laws passed thus far by countries that ratified the convention. That is why I would like to quote the people who support us. Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator of mine action at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He also negotiated the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Mr. Turcotte resigned to protest Canada's attempt to impose a weak implementation bill. That is saying something. Mr. Turcotte is advocating for stronger legislation, and we understand what he is saying.

It is important to say so. Some of my colleagues have already talked about Mr. Turcotte. When a person resigns, they understand that, in life, you have to have principles and you have to stand up for them and defend them. I hope that this will come to fruition. I remember other people who resigned as heads of certain government organizations. That is quite something. It means refusing to support this kind of thing because it betrays the spirit of the law, the mandate that we have given ourselves and the objectives we have set for ourselves. That is noteworthy.

Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, and former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser also support us. We have a lot of support. What we are asking this evening is very simple. We are asking the Conservative government, the Conservative members, the Liberals and everyone to take action and to listen to what we have to say.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one underlying current here tonight. I hope they do not actually mean it the way it comes across and that may be perceived by some as a vilification of the United States. There are no two greater friends, allies, and partners than the United States and Canada.

I would ask a very simple question of my colleague, and I would like a really simple answer. Because the United States has cluster munitions, because the United States has nuclear weapons and other weapons Canada does not own and would not consider using and opposes using, is the member suggesting that we should never operate with the United States and that we should get out of NATO and get out of NORAD because we are partnered with the United States? The message here is that we should never operate with an ally that has or could use those kinds of weapons. Are they suggesting over there that we should abandon NATO and NORAD because the United States is the primary partner in both those alliances?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is all misinformation. It is ridiculous. I am not saying we should never work with countries like the United States or other countries. That is not what I am saying.

How can the government claim it wants to ratify the convention when it is in fact trying to undermine it? That is what I want to point out. The government is trying to undermine the convention, to avoid complying with it and to circumvent the rules once again so that it can do as it pleases without ever listening to the people on the ground or the experts.

Personally, I do not want to comment on more military points. I want to emphasize that it is important to listen. I do not understand why the government does not see that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this triangulated debate, I would like to answer the question the hon. member for Edmonton Centre just asked.

I do not think any of us on the opposition benches who find the language of Bill C-6 objectionable are suggesting that we stop working with our ally and friend, the United States. We are asking merely that our legislation be as strong and committed to the goals of the cluster munitions treaty as other NATO partners and allies. Right now it is the weakest, and I think all of us find it shameful.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s comment.

In some cases, it would be good to look at what is being done in the United States. For example, take the free trade agreements that the United States has signed, as it did with Panama. If we had requested a little more information on security issues, and if we had imitated our American neighbours, we would have a much better free trade agreement than the one we negotiated.

Of course, we are prepared to work with people who show some common sense. That is what the NDP thinks. We should negotiate with those who comply with the spirit of a convention and the law, in addition to showing common sense.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for her speech and commentary.

I have to say that I am sitting here feeling rather bemused, because the current government has castigated the United States of America all week, belittling its action on climate change, but all of a sudden, they are their best friend. It is good to hear them saying goods things about the United States of America again.

I too, like the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, have actually taken the time to look at the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act. Contrary to what the members across the way say, the wording is nowhere vaguely similar. The Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act simply gives an exception where participation does not amount to active assistance. Clause 11 in Bill C-6 would basically exempt anyone directing or authorizing the activity or expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions. I am sorry. There is actually no comparison between the two.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the case she has made that it is time for Canada to step up and agree with its colleagues in NATO that we should be taking the high road and should simply enact a law that mirrors the convention.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I have little time left, I will conclude by saying that I support Mr. Hannon of Mines Action Canada when he says that Canada should have the best implementation act in the world. That is what we want, moreover. We must state clearly that no Canadian will be involved in the use of such a weapon again. The proposed bill does not really meet these expectations.

Why is the government trying to do as little as possible instead of striving to pass the best implementation act in the world? The reason why the New Democrats were elected was to make sure Canada had the best laws in the world.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 11:13 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill; however, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the divisions stand deferred until Tuesday, June 17, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-6.

Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

Is the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North rising on a point of order?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize you were distracted, but I was unable to present my question due to the overwhelming din from the other side. I sat down and I never did get to ask my question.

Might I be able to ask my question?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have already indicated that question period is over and we are moving on to the vote. I do not know if there is consent of the House to revert to question period.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There does not seem to be.

The hon. member for Ottawa South is rising.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for unanimous consent this afternoon to table three documents.

The first is the budget document from Australia, which tables building Australia's infrastructure—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am hearing nays before the member has even finished.

I sense the desire of the House to get on to the deferred recorded divisions. We had tabling of documents earlier today. Perhaps we will go ahead with the vote, and then if the member wants to seek unanimous consent of the House, the House might be in a better mood and may be inclined to grant it.

We will now move on.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

During the taking of the vote:

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I think that members are getting awfully close to holding up a prop, and I do not think that it suits the House very well. I will ask members to come to order, and we will resume with the vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #213

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated as well.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #214

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #215

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.