Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We understand the rationale and we understand the desire behind this motion. Cluster bombs are a concern for a lot of people, everywhere, and as you have rightfully pointed out, Canada has agreed and will go to the Oslo meeting.

Our concern is we do not know at this given time what kind of an instrument is going to come out of Oslo. Your motion is actually saying a lot of things that may or may not be in the instrument that is going to come out in Oslo. So our suggestion here, at this stage, is let's wait and see what happens in Oslo, what kind of an instrument comes out in Oslo — I am saying with Canada's participation — debate it, and see if that is the right instrument that we would like to support or not. Doing a motion prior to going to Oslo and talking about this instrument here means we are pre-empting what is going to be discussed, which is why the government is having difficulty in supporting this motion. We do not have any problem; we understand it's important, which is why the desire to go to Oslo has been made.

I will recommend at this stage for Alexa to put this on hold and wait until the instrument comes out of Oslo...what kind of instrument comes out of Oslo, and then we'll be in a better position to actually discuss, debate, and bring forward all those points that you are saying. Otherwise, we are pre-empting and saying something up in the front. That is the government's position at this stage.

So my recommendation is to put it on hold — I am not saying withdraw it — until we see. The Oslo convention is not too far away, anyway. It's happening in only a week from now, so we will have a very good idea of what is happening in Oslo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

My concern is along the same lines, but I suppose maybe it's my own personal...not understanding exactly what defines a “cluster munition”. I would think that out of Oslo there could come better knowledge applied to coming together with a definition, if that's what the outcome is going to be. I would think that just saying “cluster munitions”, whether it's from air delivered or ground delivered... I'm not sure and I don't know what is in military arsenals right now and whether hand grenades and other things like that could be included in that kind of a definition, because they do splinter and fall apart. So I would have a concern over having a very appropriate and definable definition for what the concern is and also how that meeting in Oslo would look at it and view it, because I'm sure they would have those kinds of discussions with modern military procurers and manufacturers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thanks, Mr. Goldring.

Madame Lalonde, Madam McDonough.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chairman, because we believe this is important, I would like to convince my colleagues to do this now, instead of waiting for Oslo, in order for the Oslo process to move ahead at a good pace. We believe that this is something that it is important we do.

Canada played the role of leader during the negotiation of the Convention on landmines. However, if countries had waited to see what was going to happen at the conference before coming on board to show their interest, that would in no way have helped the process along. In any event, we know that there are more than 26 countries today: there are probably 30 some countries now, perhaps more. It is therefore very much in our interest to do this.

The United States can yet again refuse and say that these are weapons that they do not wish to deprive themselves of. We have seen far too many of the effects of these weapons that stay there. In Lebanon, some old landmines that dated back some 20 years were recently uncovered. These cluster bombs are of the same kind. Remember what happened in Afghanistan, where the cluster bombs were small in size and yellow and blended in with the parcels of food that were being thrown down from airplanes, because they were of the same colour. Several children were hurt and even killed. Then they stopped running out to collect the food parcels. Those are just two examples, but there are many more.

I would like to say to the chairman and to the clerk that we have a translation problem. In the French text, you use the term “bombe à dispersion“ in the first paragraph and “bombe à diffusion“ in the third paragraph. There is also the term “bombe à fragmentation“, which I prefer. We should be using the same terminology in the first and third paragraphs, and in all of the others. In English, it is the same term, “cluster bombs“, that is used in all ten paragraphs.

So shall we use the term “bombe à fragmentation“? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

That's not an amendment; it's just a translation difference.

We'll have Mr. Patry, and then Mr. Wilfert.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I just want to say that we're not asking for that many things; we're asking that Canada would “join with the...countries” — we can delete “twenty-six” because now there'll be 30 — “leading efforts in developing...an international treaty”, not a new one, because there's not one in the sense that if there was an old one, then we'd get a new one. For an international treaty, we'll just say we'll join the people who want to lead the world to stop these cluster bombs. That's something that, to me, is quite easy. We don't need to wait to see what's going to happen. We can join the efforts of the world, see what's going to happen over there, and after that, just push, in a sense, our government.

Your government, Mr. Obhrai, didn't... If my colleague Mr. Wilson had not asked the question last week... You were undecided as to whether you wanted to go to Oslo. You decided after the United States had decided to go as an observer.

Under the second bullet, I would like to delete “until”.

Mrs. McDonough, when you say “Declare a moratorium on the use, production, trade, transfer, or procurement of cluster munitions” — bombs — “until humanitarian concerns about them are addressed”, I think we should delete this. My understanding — I'm francophone — is that it means “when humanitarian concerns are addressed, at that time, we won't have any more moratoriums”. We could delete this, in a sense.

At the next bullet, I would put, “Complete the destruction of the cluster munitions in Canada’s military arsenal.” Period; that's it. We're just asking for Canada to be one of the leading countries, because we showed leadership, for instance, with the Canada convention on anti-personal mines. That's all we are requesting. We're not requesting anything else.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Are you finished, Mr. Patry?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes, I'm finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Wilfert, and then Madam McDonough.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

When I asked the minister ten days ago, he said that they were undecided as to whether Canada would go. Now the question becomes is Canada going to show real leadership? Do they have proposals? Does the government have proposals they're going to bring to Oslo? Or are they going to be a spectator?

We were not a spectator when we developed the Ottawa convention. We took leadership in that role. I think it's incumbent upon us to know if the government is prepared to...

And I think Ms. McDonough, in terms of her motion, is trying to get the government to show some leadership. You don't lead from behind. So either they're prepared to, if they've got specific proposals, and Mr. Obhrai obviously is a fountain of knowledge on all of these things lately.

Maybe you could tell us. We don't even need the minister. I'd just like to know, are you going to show leadership? What is it you're going to be proposing at Oslo? Or are you simply going to be in the back seat watching?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'm going to run to Mr. Obhrai, because we always look to Mr. Obhrai for leadership.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Then we're in trouble.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Actually, Alexa....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, Alexa was first.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

There are two things.

This really is a call for us to move out of the shadows on this and join those who are providing leadership. That's the thrust of this motion. I think we would all agree, in order to be seen to be willing to provide leadership, we would surely, in stepping forward, want to make it clear that we're putting our money where our mouth is: we're declaring a moratorium on cluster bombs.

Let me also remind people what it is we're doing here. What we're doing here is sending a recommendation from this committee to the government, through the House, right? We're reporting to the House that we're asking the government to step forward in this manner. It's not in any way precluding, predetermining, pre-committing Canada to the details of what will be in the treaty. What it calls for is for us to join those who are involved in the effort of developing a treaty. That's what it says. It's simply a recommendation from this committee to the government, to which they will have an opportunity to respond in an appropriate way in due course. That's all this is.

I think, honestly, there's been an ongoing international campaign around this for some time. I've had this motion before the committee now for about, I think, two and a half months. Surely it isn't committing some kind of crime for people to agree in general with the thrust of this motion to the extent that we're willing to report it back to the House. That's all we're calling on. If we had the power to force the government to do these things, I guess we'd try to do that too, but we don't.

So I would urge support for the motion, in that spirit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, who's up next?

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

First of all, I want to thank Bryon for giving me such great credit. Thank you very much.

Back to the main point of this thing, we took quite a leading role in protocol V when it was being developed out there. It is now going through the interdepartmental final analysis, before it is signed. Canada has played a very important role. The decision taken to go to Norway is to participate. It is not a decision to go there and be an observer. We are going to be participating fully in everything.

[An hon. member]

Why didn't the minister go —

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Why don't you let me finish when I'm talking? You already had your turn. Please listen intently.

Let me go back; this is an important issue.

So we are going there. The difficulty coming from the government here is that you want to declare a moratorium, you ask for actions to be taken before the instrument is signed...and what is negotiated by the instrument, taking a lot of other things into account, the legalities and everything here.

Now, if you were to make a general motion, something to the tune of Canada is participating in Norway and we would like Canada to be heavily engaged in this, with an objective of achieving...whatever, then one could see something different coming out here.

This motion, from the point of view of the government, is that we want to go to Oslo with the idea of seeing what is happening and how to negotiate...not how to negotiate, but to be there. So our concern here is that this motion...

I would just ask you if you could park it until the instrument over there is done, and then you'll have a better idea which direction you would like to go with a subsequent motion, if you want to put forward two.

I just want to say that we do have this concern, and because of that, the government may vote against this, which we don't want to do, because we want to send a message of unanimity out there that cluster bombing is a very important issue to all officials here in the department. So if this motion is worded in a manner that we can all support, it will send a unanimous message.

These guys have been in power for 13 years — which was a disaster — but they do know how governments operate. That is why we're having this little difficulty.

We do understand cluster bombing is an important issue with Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

[An hon. member]

Call the question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring first, and then we'll call the question.

Madam McDonough, you get the final chance, if you want it.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

To my understanding, the main concerns in regard to cluster bombing have to do with the after-effects, the residue, with the delayed-fuse ones that may be sitting there for children to pick up, the ones that are in danger of exploding again or being a hazard to people. Other cluster munitions explode on impact, when they're delivered.

So they may very well be strategic weapons for a military to want to have, but they're still cluster bombs. This agreement in Oslo may very well be trying to define that, to say that the delayed-explosion ones, or the ones that just lie there waiting for somebody to approach the proximity and pick up or disturb them... It may well be that some of those cluster munitions could be banned and could be regulated against while still allowing for others that don't have those characteristics.

Once again, I think if you wait to see what is the collective wisdom that comes from Oslo...and I would agree to join with them, to be part of the discussion to see whether there isn't that type of defining coming from it, with the overall intention of doing what you want.