Debates of June 11th, 2013

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, leaving aside the term the member opposite has just used, let us open up the debate a little bit wider. How is it that the NDP, the party opposite, would even weigh in on this debate? It relates to a necessary balance that we, as a government, are seeking to strike, and believe we have struck in this legislation, between our disarmament obligations, which run very deep in this country, and our obligations as an ally, where interoperability is not an option. It is something that is codified in the very DNA of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is something without which missions such as Libya and Afghanistan would never have happened. The defence of North America, the defence of Europe and the naval operation in the Arabian Sea would not have happened, not just without interoperability but without the ability to exchange officers, sailors, air crew and soldiers.

How does the NDP even deign to rise and comment on this debate, when every time legislation comes forward, budgets come forward and debates come forward in the House on giving equipment, funding and training and even approving missions for the Canadian Armed Forces they are against it? The no-defence party is here--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we have been hearing is beneath debate in the House. I am really disappointed with the way this is being dealt with. That we are disabled from talking about a principle of humanity that underlies this treaty and how it relates to this exalted principle of interoperability the member seems to reify is absolutely nuts.

I am going to quote back to the member what he said when he was criticizing the Liberals. He said that "in the heat of combat, most of them wanted the best for our troops". He then went on to say that they sent troops into battle "under-equipped", and he used that to say that somehow or other they had lost their way and were being hypocritical. Frankly, the whole way that played out sounded to me just like the defence of the actual use of cluster munitions.

Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that he actually is not, in a veiled way, defending the use of cluster munitions through this exaltation of the principle of interoperability?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in any way advocating the use of cluster munitions. If the member had been listening to my remarks, he would know that my only involvement with cluster munitions in Afghanistan was trying not to be a victim of them.

It is the government that is bringing in legislation to make Canada a state party to this convention, which we were not at the time of combat in Afghanistan, the convention having only been formulated four and a half years ago.

The real question is why the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Vancouver East really show absolutely no respect, not only for our military but for our main ally, which plays a role in the security of North America and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and indeed in anchoring peace and stability in the world.

I would like the member, if he gets up sometime tonight, to say that he believes in this, that he believes in the mission in Afghanistan and that he believes in our alliance with the United States. Quite frankly, we do not hear it from the NDP very often.

We know that many of them, through the history of the CCF and the NDP, were committed to taking Canada out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to having no military relations to speak of with the United States. That is the kind of thing we are hearing tonight with the sanctimonious rhetoric and this wanton disregard for interoperability.

It was the member for Vancouver East who first called my speech, which was at least an attempt to be substantive on the issue, unparliamentary. Are the NDP members suggesting that we should not discuss military and security topics in this House? That is certainly what it sounded like to us.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what might have been a rhetorical question when he said that he did not know how the NDP could weigh in on this debate. I just wanted to remind my hon. colleague that our party was the only party in this House that opposed Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That position was supported by over 50% of the Canadian population.

Over four million Canadians voted for us in the last election. That is why we are here. That is why we have every right to debate this issue in the House.

The member said that the U.S. is perhaps in a different place than Canada on this treaty. Let us just put it in perspective. There are four billion cluster bombs stockpiled around the world. The United States has a quarter of them. They are not just in a different place; they are in a different universe.

What the member is trying to say to us tonight is that we do not have any right to question their position. We just have an obligation to listen and adhere to their position. We are saying here, and we are actually saying it very clearly, that we support the treaty lock, stock and barrel. We do not support a way in which our position in the world is somehow compromised by this clause on interoperability.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport says that we on this side do whatever the Americans tell us to do. I have news for him. He clearly has not been following the debate. The Americans are not signing this convention. We signed the convention. We are ratifying it. It is a sovereign decision by a Conservative government, and it is a good decision.

Second, the member says that the United States of America, and I think this one is really one for the record books, is in a different universe. What universe is it the member for Davenport is talking about? Is it the universe that does not include a country across the Niagara River, our closest ally with whom we do $2 billion in business a day, with whom the city he represents is integrated culturally, socially and economically in every possible way? Does he call that a different universe?

What greater measure, what greater indicator of a lack of respect for the United States, its role in the world, its role as an ally, in security and in military affairs could there be than to say that it is in a different universe?

I would like to close by simply reminding the NDP that with its position, opposing the combat mission in Afghanistan, it joined a grand total of zero governments of NATO countries. There were no NATO countries that failed to deploy to Afghanistan. It would have been the only one, and that is why it is not fit to govern. It will not govern. This government will do everything in its power to point out the absolute bankruptcy of the NDP on these issues.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we just listened to the parliamentary secretary tie himself into knots in his pretzel logic. He sounded more like a cheerleader for cluster bombs than an opponent of cluster bombs. He spent most of his speech justifying places where they maybe need to be used in the interests of some higher power. He sounded like he worked for the NRA, not the peace movement.

It is no surprise that the loophole clause is called chapter 11, because 22 is a multiple, and my colleague has a Catch-22 mentality about the banning of cluster mines that is worthy of Joseph Heller.

I was hoping there would be a serious debate on this issue tonight, because the country is watching. The country was optimistic that we might be taking some tentative measures to reclaim our position in the global community, much as we did when the whole nation got involved in the land mines treaty. School kids got involved. People were proud of our country and of the lead position that we took as part of the international community, whether it was led by Lady Diana or by others in our own country, such as Dr. Samantha Nutt and Lloyd Axworthy. They played powerful roles and made the country proud.

Instead, we took something that was virtuous and had great merit, and then sabotaged and undermined it. We are actually undermining and sabotaging the international community with this loophole clause.

Let me explain.

The parliamentary secretary is laughing. I do not think he realizes how bad he is making our country look with his shenanigans.

I do not know if he is responsible for the sabotage. I do not think he is that high up the totem pole in his rank. I am going to back up a second while he is still here, while we have his attention and while he is still lucid, because it is getting late and he may be reverting to the chitter-chatter that goes on to try to undermine any kind of meaningful debate in this place.

I will read clause 6. I am going to go through a few parts of it.

Clause 6 would meet the nod test with most Canadians and in fact would make most Canadians proud that we signed on to this treaty in 2008. Clause 6 states:

—it is prohibited for any person to

(a) use a cluster munition...

(b) develop, make, acquire or possess, a cluster munition...

(c) move a cluster munition...

(d) import or export a cluster munition...

(e) attempt to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(f) aid, abet or counsel another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);

(g) conspire with another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d);...

All of that sounds great. It sounds very thorough and comprehensive that Canada will have no part of cluster munitions in any way, shape or form, including the manufacture, the shipping, the export, the sale, the handling or the use. We are out.

We are out until we go a few pages further, to a much larger clause that goes on for a full two pages. It is clause 11, which states:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person...from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster [musician]...

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster [musician]...

(c) using, acquiring or possessing a cluster munition...

These are all the exceptions.

Clause 11 goes on to state:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation...from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to [use a munition]...

In other words, it gives a road map for all the ways that Canada can participate in the use of cluster musicians.

Did I say “musicians” again? That is what members are laughing about. I am a little upset, and they ought to cut me some slack because I have never been so disappointed, I do not think, in my 16 years here.

There are many things wrong with how this came before us, but I think it is absolutely tragic that we are missing this opportunity to accurately reflect the mood of the nation and engage in a robust denunciation of cluster musicians.

Now I am going to say it all the time.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

I am going to rise on a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As a member of the musicians union, my colleague from Davenport is probably profoundly offended. They do tend to cluster. They travel in groups because there is safety in numbers.

Let me back up and start over again somewhat.

We should take note, as I always do, that this bill is called Bill “S”-10. Let me begin by saying that I profoundly resent the fact that these bills are originating in the Senate. Nobody gave a mandate to senators to generate and create legislation. It used to be a rare exception that a bill came to this chamber from the Senate. In actual fact, even though we signed this treaty in 2008, the Senate got it in April 2012. Notwithstanding the urgency that the Conservatives would have us believe that this needs to be dealt with today and tonight, and that they even invoked closure to bring that about, it took four years before they even tabled it in the Senate, never mind the House of Commons.

The Senate had it from April until December 6, when it was introduced into this chamber. That is eight or nine months that they lollygagged along with it and did whatever with it they do over there, and on December 6 it finally got introduced here. Then on May 29, 2013, at 1:00 a.m., the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs stood up and spoke to this bill for about eight or ten minutes before adjournment occurred.

Sometimes that is all we need from the parliamentary secretary to foreign affairs. Eight or ten minutes is plenty.

We had 10 minutes of debate on this bill, a bill that I believe the whole country could and should be interested in for any number of good reasons. No sooner do we deal with it for 15 minutes than today we again get closure.

We ask ourselves how often the government uses closure on bills. The answer is that at every single stage of every single bill, we get time allocation and closure, which shuts down the debate.

If I can preface my criticism of this bill, I have to begin by criticizing its origin, which was in the other place, the Senate, where they have no business, no mandate and nobody elected them. They have no legitimacy in terms of generating legislation. They have no right to have first dibs at it for approval in principle, et cetera. When we finally get it here, it is already in this form as we have it.

I listened to a number of comments on clause 11 throughout this debate. It not only would give the escape clause, the loophole by which Canada could in fact participate in the use of cluster bombs in partnership with other countries that are not signatory, the most obvious one being the United States, but it would actually sabotage and undermine the integrity of the entire international operation.

I do not think people realize the full depth and breadth of what we are dealing with here. My colleague from Toronto Centre quite rightly pointed out, who is crafting our foreign policy? Who is dictating this kind of thing? This is not the will of Canadians. I can assure members that if they put this to Canadians in any kind of a full debate or information package or opportunity to comment, they would be horrified.

Our proudest achievements recently and in the last decade were, first, not going into Iraq. I guarantee that if the government of the day had been in power then, we would have been in Iraq. There is no doubt about it. The second was the land mine treaty. People felt good again about being Canadian.

Now incrementally, bit by bit, we have had our international reputation undermined to the point where commentators from around the world are wondering what the heck is going on with this country.

We have people like former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser saying, “It's a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.” That is a pretty strong condemnation from a former prime minister of a Commonwealth country.

Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for mine action at DFAIT, the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”.

We are not leading the pack anymore. We are not leading the parade. We are the guy behind the elephants with a push broom, following the parade.

Paul Hannon, the 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 this weapon again, but from our reading, this legislation falls well short of those standards.”

Our role as the international good guys, as the Boy Scouts of the world on many issues, is to elevate the standard of behaviour and performance. Maybe that means standing up on our hind legs to our American neighbour sometimes and saying, “We're with you. We're brothers-in-arms in almost every respect, but if you're using cluster munitions in this particular conflict, we're out. We have legislation in our country that doesn't permit us to go anywhere near it”.

That may in fact give pause to those countries that have yet to ratify. They may realize that there is a cost, a price to pay, if they are not going to join the international community in its growing condemnation of these cluster munitions.

The horror of them is well known and has been well documented by many other speakers. I would be the first to admit I am not an expert in foreign affairs, but I do have a innate gut sense, I believe, of right and wrong, and in this case we are dead wrong. I am embarrassed by our position on this piece of legislation and I am not trying to overstate things.

I hear the chatter over there. I hope they are proud of themselves. I do not know how they ever came to this point of view. Who was pulling their strings? Who would even devise and design this clause 11 to so thoroughly contradict the letter and the spirit of the law?

Surely that is our obligation when we enter into an international convention or treaty. We commit ourselves. We stipulate ourselves to both the letter and the spirit of the law. We promise to uphold that, to propagate it, to promote it and advocate it. That is how these things spread, by the leadership of enlightened western developed nations like Canada in elevating the standard of behaviour even in the event of armed conflict.

The prohibitions include to “...receive, comfort or assist another person, knowing that the person has committed, or has aided or abetted in the commission of, any act”. Those were described earlier, and this is how contradictory it is: it is even an offence under this bill to lend succour or support to anyone who is participating in any of those mentioned offences, yet clause 11 clearly states that we can be standing side by side with the person who is offending these points in clause 6. They are not stipulated to the convention.

Therefore, we can help them. We can carry the material for them. We can deliver it to them so that they can bomb people with it. We can do virtually anything to aid and abet our NATO colleagues in the United States.

[Brian Storseth]

Give me a break.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That is not true.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, that is my reading of it. I would be interested to hear how my parliamentary secretary colleague would say that I am wrong, because the understanding of any objective outsider reading this would be that there are exemptions and loopholes here that one could drive a truck through. It makes a mockery of the entire initiative in both the letter and the spirit of the law.

I am saying this trying not to be inflammatory, but the only reason that the Conservatives could possibly find to move time allocation and closure on this particular debate is that they would be embarrassed if school kids and activists around the country got wind of it and laid their eyes on this unworthy document and were aware that we were going to be facilitating those who use cluster munitions.

Never mind participating in the ban. We may in fact dispose of our stockpile in our country, but we have full permission to do anything necessary to enable countries that do have a history of using them regularly to carry on using them.

One of the most moving things I ever saw was when I had the opportunity to go to Geneva. There is a statue of a kitchen chair in Geneva twice as big as the Speaker's throne. I would say it is probably 30 feet high, with one leg blown off and simply splintered. It became the international symbol of land mines. It captured the imagination of the whole international community, I believe. It serves as a stark reminder that there are some things we just will not tolerate.

Again, as other speakers have mentioned, the face of warfare has changed so dramatically that it really becomes a game of who is willing to sacrifice the most civilians and not necessarily armed combatants. It is not necessarily soldiers versus soldiers any more, but how much brutality one is willing to cope with before one yields. That is the nature of war, and the victims of war are more often civilians and innocent bystanders.

It is cluster munitions perhaps more than anything else, now that land mines are being eradicated and remediation is under way to clear the hundreds of millions of mines that have been placed around world. Now the world has turned its sights on cluster munitions to rid us of this scourge, yet Canada is not doing its part. We are not pulling our weight. We are falling short and dropping the ball. We are failing innocent civilians around the world by not speaking out and not using everything possible to denounce, deter, restrict and move toward a global outlawing of these cluster musicians.

Therefore, clause 11 is why we will oppose the proposed legislation at this stage. We do not believe we could even support it in principle. I am sure politics will be played with this. The Conservatives will be putting out press releases saying that the NDP has voted against banning cluster munitions. I am sure they will play that game, but this is one of those debates that needs a more extensive treatment, because we can point back to the Conservatives as kowtowing to some greater master, somebody who is pulling their strings and telling them not to pass the legislation without leaving this mega-loophole in.

At committee, there will be an attempt to delete clause 11, or at least modify it so it does not undermine and completely destroy the intent of the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. I am sure this may not even occur until after we come back in the fall. I doubt very much we will have the opportunity between now and adjournment to give this proposed legislation the complete treatment it deserves.

The Conservatives have been moving closure at every stage of every bill. They have also been manipulating committee. Our parliamentary democracy is in tatters. It is really only a facsimile of a democracy that we have left. All the checks and balances to ensure there is some ability to accommodate the legitimate concerns brought forward by members, other than the actual authors of the bill, have been eradicated.

We are getting pretty tired of this winner-takes-all attitude that the Conservatives have exhibited. I am surprised they play this kind of cheap, petty politics with such a significant humanitarian initiative. It disappoints me, and I say that in all sincerity. I do not even feel like yelling and screaming about it. It makes me sad more than angry.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary to be accused of praising a very dangerous munition. As part of a series of speeches on this side, we spoke in support of a convention to ban that munition, which has never been used by the Canadian Forces. Very limited stockpiles within the Canadian Forces are already on the way to being destroyed.

Let me remind the member opposite that this is a measure brought in by this Conservative government. The member opposite spent most of his speech calling for a convention on the total prohibition and ban of cluster musicians. He does not realize that this will lose the NDP members a lot of votes, the few votes they have left in the city of Toronto. The member for Davenport and the member for Timmins—James Bay would be affected. It could be the collapse of the party. We are not here to champion that move tonight. We may champion it later.

The only person he could cite in favour of his position was a former Australian politician. Does the member know that Australia, too, has its version of clause 11? It, too, has an exception because it does combat operations with the United States. It wants to continue to be interoperable with the United States.

Does the member opposite understand that the United States still uses these weapons, much as we may regret that fact? It does not use land mines.

Finally, does the member acknowledge and support the fact that Canada is a member of NATO and Norad? Does he support those alliances?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not call for a total ban on musicians. I could perhaps be some musicians. Bagpipes come to mind. Some people say that the best use for bagpipes is to use them as kindling for a bonfire of accordions. That comes to mind as well. I do not mean to offend any cultural or ethnic group. There are a lot of Scots and Ukrainians.

Ninety-eight percent of the victims of cluster bombs are civilians, not military. I know Canada is going to destroy our limited stockpiles. I also know the United States has no intention of doing so.

The parliamentary secretary might think I spent a lot of my speech bashing musicians, but he spent a lot of his speech as a cheerleader, a champion and an advocate of the sometimes unfortunate necessary use of cluster bombs. It was a disgrace.

We listened on this side and we could not believe our ears. He was tying himself in a knot with some kind of pretzel reasoning, saying that the Conservatives wanted to ban cluster bombs, but sometimes when it was necessary to use them, they could not block their use by allies in NATO. We do not have to carry and deliver them as is contemplated in this clause 11. We do not have to facilitate them or help them promote the use of cluster bombs.

With a clear denunciation, maybe even our colleagues and our partners like the United States might take note that an enlightened country like Canada will not tolerate it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in defence of all musicians in the House.

Let us just bring it back to cluster munitions. We hear the government side blithely say that it supports the banning of cluster munitions. What I would like my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre to comment on is that if the government is so steadfastly in support of this treaty, which we are, why would the chief negotiator say in the media that he was removed from the job partly because of objections from senior U.S. officials to his aggressive stance in the talks?

That raises this question: who is driving the ship on foreign policy for Canada if the chief negotiator was removed because of complaints from the U.S. side? Could my colleague respond to this query?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to raise the issue of sovereignty. It does raise the question as to who was pulling the strings if the senior negotiator on behalf of Canada resigned or was fired because he did not approve of this clause. It is a worrisome thing.

Mr. Earl Turcotte said, “The proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”. That is pretty strong language and is pretty clear that something went terribly wrong. We entered into this with great hope and optimism that it would be something of which we could be proud.

Canada's stance at these negotiations is usually on its knees. The great appear great when we are on our knees. There is a saying we have, “Let us rise and stand up on our hind legs and declare ourselves as a sovereign nation in these negotiations and put our foot down and say this is the way we are doing things in this country, take it or leave it. We will work with you, we will trade with you, we will even fight with you, but if you are going to use cluster munitions in this particular field of combat, we are not there”.

That would be a position I could be proud of, and it would meet the nod test of most Canadians.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned Mr. Earl Turcotte a couple of times tonight. I wonder if he is aware that Mr. Turcotte was a negotiator for Canada at the cluster munitions convention. In fact, he attended all three meetings of the convention negotiations and was very intimately involved in the negotiation of article 21, with which apparently he now disagrees.

Could the member tell us if he understands that Mr. Turcotte was involved with those negotiations, specifically with negotiation on article 21, and did not object to it at the time when he was involved in the negotiations, and that Canada is simply implementing now the convention that he in fact negotiated on behalf of Canada?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we object to article 21 either. It is clause 11 that we find particular fault with. Article 21 states, “Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention”. That is a good deal. “Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention...of its obligations...shall promote the norms it establishes”, et cetera. That is a good deal.

Article 21 of the actual convention I think we are probably in agreement with. It is clause 11 of the legislation put forward in Bill S-10 that we find fault with, the domestic legislation that completely undermines the spirit of article 21 of the actual convention.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre did not answer my question earlier, which was this. Does his party support our membership in the alliances that have brought us security since the Second World War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the North American Aerospace Defence Alliance based in Colorado Springs, part of it based in the member's hometown of Winnipeg?

He has already given us his answer. He spoke about cleaning up after the elephant. That is exactly the NDP's policy on defence and security. The New Democrats do not want an active role for Canada. They do not want us to have armed forces that are capable. They do not want us to be interoperable with our allies, because they just want security to happen. They want others to look after it. They want to wake up in the morning and find out that everything is all right. The world is not like that. The member should know better. He should know we have obligations in the world.

Will he not confirm once and for all in the House that he supports our basic alliances that have kept us safe?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the use of cluster bombs is morally and ethically reprehensible and we will not tolerate any weaseling away from that position. We will not be the boys who carry the cluster bombs for the Americans to drop. We will not do it. We should not be allowing people to manufacture them here or to send them across our borders to the United States.

It raises this question: who is shaping our foreign policy? That is the question Canadians want answered. On this whole idea that the Conservatives will try and paint themselves as the ones who are trying to rid the world of cluster bombs, let me say one thing: villainy wears many masks, but none so treacherous as the mask of virtue. That is what I accuse the Conservatives of.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here tonight to talk about such an important piece of legislation as Bill S-10. It is truly a piece of legislation that I have been waiting for since pre-2008.

I am a little disturbed to hear the type of dialogue that has been going on in the House. This is not only a good piece of legislation, but is an important piece of legislation for us to ratify and to move forward on. We want to maintain Canada's standing in the world and our history of being a strong country. Whether it is land mines and the Ottawa treaty or cluster munitions, it is important to note that we have been part of this cluster munitions discussion since the beginning of the Oslo process.

As the member of Parliament for Westlock—St. Paul, it sometimes can be seen as a bit of yin and yang when it comes to the issue of supporting the eradication of cluster munitions to many people who are not educated on the issue. I represent two of the largest tactical military bases in our country, 4 Wing Cold Lake, the tactical fighter squadron, and Edmonton Garrison.

However, when we talk to the men and women of the Canadian Forces, they agree with this legislation because they believe that we need to give them the best arms possible that target the enemy and not civilians. As members on both sides of the aisle have said today throughout the rigorous debate that we have had, cluster munitions, unfortunately, target civilians.

The use of cluster munitions has had a profound impact on many countries because it is an intermittent use. We cannot ask the offending country or the offending state or the offending terrorist organization to give us a map of where it used them because they are dispersed throughout an area where, ultimately, young children and farmers end up becoming the victims months, if not years, afterwards.

As I said before, I have to thank my wife for bringing this very important issue to my attention back in 2008 when it was happening in Lebanon, as it has happened in Serbia, as it has happened Vietnam, as it has happened in Nicaragua. When we have had the opportunity to talk to victims of cluster munitions, young children who picked up that little pink ball thinking it was a toy and it blew up and took off an arm or a leg, it is something that we cannot help but feel passionate about. It is something that we cannot help but say, that it is wrong and we need to fight to ensure that it changes.

We go back and think about the time, 2008-2009, when Mr. Turcotte was negotiating on our behalf, as one of the delegation. We were looking, as Canadians, at the ups and downs. We did not know if there would even be enough countries to bother ratifying this, to come to the process at which we are today. It seemed like a bit of a dream to get to the point where we, as a country, were ratifying, where we had over 100 countries on side, and where we could honestly look to putting pressure on those countries, having the social licence to put pressure on those countries that had not ratified.

I look at this legislation. Is it perfect? Is it everything that we could have dreamed about in 2008? No.

However, as we went through the steps I will talk about today, it is a very good piece of legislation. It would have an impact that would make a significant difference, and would reduce the amount of cluster munitions used in the world today. I think that is a very important step. I think that anybody who opposes that has not done their due diligence in looking at this and saying, we cannot have it all, but we can sure start with this piece of legislation, with the Oslo treaty. Being able to move forward from here is a great starting point, not only for Canadians, but in particular for those third world countries that have been affected by the harmful use of cluster munitions.

As members before me have already stated, Canada participated actively in the negotiations on the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and we were one of the first countries to sign on to it, in 2008.

As we prepare to return home to our constituencies this summer, it is extremely important that we move this legislation forward as quickly as possible. Bill S-10 is a necessary step that brings us closer to ratification.

Let me emphasize this fact. When I first started lobbying the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we needed to make sure that we ratified this, that Canada continue its international reputation as a leader in the area of land mines and cluster munitions. I was proud of the support that I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but at the end of the day our country has gone through numerous minority governments. We have now finally got into a strong, stable Conservative majority government that has allowed us to take on some of these important issues.

I am happy to sit longer into June so that we can make sure that this not only gets voted on in the House of Commons but gets royal assent. It is important that we maintain our reputation around the world. As Canadians, we are expected to be leaders. Let nobody in this House say otherwise. We have been leaders throughout this entire process. We were one of the first countries at the table. We were one of the first countries to push our NATO allies, as the parliamentary secretary of defence talked about earlier. We have been one of the leaders. It is because of the credibility and the bloodshed of our men and women of the Canadian Forces that we have that credibility with the Americans, with the British, with the Australians, with all of our allies to say we have been there and we want to move the ball forward when it comes to the elimination and ratification of cluster munitions.

Explosive remnants of war, including those caused by cluster munitions, are a grave humanitarian concern. Cluster munitions are deployed from the air or ground with some types able to release dozens or even hundreds of smaller submunitions quickly, covering a large area.

Cluster munitions pose a significant threat to civilians, not only during attacks but particularly afterwards when they fail to detonate as intended. Unexploded bomblets can kill and maim civilians long after conflicts have ended, especially in densely populated areas. Tragically, many cluster munitions casualties are innocent and unknowing children. Unexploded bomblets can also hinder access to land and essential infrastructure, curbing the development potential of entire communities.

As I have been advocating for this legislation for many years, I have had the opportunity to talk to children and farmers who have been in their groves or in their fields and picked up what they thought was a toy only to find that it was a harmful explosive device that, unknown to them, would end up causing them severe damage.

We should be proud of the work that we have done in Canada. We should be proud of the fact that we are consistently in the top ten, if not the top five, when it comes to donating money to countries regarding land mines or cluster munitions. We should be proud of these accomplishments that we have consistently made from 2005, 2006 and onwards.

I find it quite offensive to hear members of the opposition stand up and say that we should not ratify this because it is not perfect and is not exactly what somebody has told us we need to do. Quite frankly, as I listen to them, I realize that most of them have not taken the time that their former leader Alexa McDonough did to understand the importance of ratifying this treaty. I looked at the member from Winnipeg as he talked about this. He sat in the same caucus as Ms. McDonough. Did he not understand from her and her passion the importance that we as a country move forward quickly on this?

Our government's commitment to the protection of civilians against the indiscriminate effects of explosive remnants of war is well established, with Canada traditionally in the top ten donors and often in the top five.

Since 2006, we have contributed more than $200 million to over 250 projects with respect to this global effort. For example, our efforts have provided over $1.5 million for the Organization of American States to support mine clearing in Nicaragua, which, with the support of other donors, helped to clear 179,000 landmines planted during the internal conflict in Nicaragua in the 1980s. As a result, in 2010, Nicaragua declared itself mine-free. Its mine-free status made Central America the first post-conflict region of the world to become mine-free.

Building on this momentum, we are proud to be part of the international effort to rid the world of cluster munitions. Recognizing the harm that cluster munitions cause civilians, inspired by the Ottawa convention, the international community began in 2007 to negotiate a treaty that would ban cluster munitions. The resulting Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention and transfer of cluster munitions.

In the government's view, the treaty we signed and are now working to ratify strikes the right balance between humanitarian considerations and the continued ability of states parties to protect their national security and defence interests. Indeed, the convention reflects Canada's efforts during negotiations to ensure the right balance between the commitment to eliminate the use of cluster munitions based on humanitarian concerns and the need to protect our legitimate and important security considerations. Canada has never used cluster munitions. We would have agreed to a complete ban on them, but it was clear from the outset that this was simply not a realistic option.

Given the positions of other countries, it would not have been possible for Canada to ratify an immediate and complete ban since other countries we co-operate with militarily were not prepared to do the same. Would we have preferred that all countries sign on to the convention? Would we have preferred that all countries had the principled stance and the ability that Canada has had? Yes, of course, but unfortunately some of our closest allies did not sign on. In that context, the best way to eventually end the use of munitions is to allow countries like Canada to renounce their use and join the treaty while maintaining the ability to co-operate with allies that choose not to join.

Throughout the preparatory phases and during negotiations on the convention known as the Oslo process, a number of states insisted that the new treaty needed to contain provisions permitting the continued ability to engage effectively in military co-operation in operations with countries that did not sign the convention. We negotiated for the eventual elimination of these weapons, but also recognized that not all states would be in a position to immediately join that convention. In a context where multilateral, military co-operation operations are crucial to international security, again this was not exclusively a Canadian position but one shared by other countries, particularly our allies.

Article 21 of the convention is the resulting compromise, which recognizes that allowing states parties to conduct military co-operation in operations with states not party was the best way to ensure as many countries as possible join the convention. Without article 21, fewer states that possess cluster munitions would have agreed to join us and commit to eliminating their stockpiles and use of weapons.

There has been a lot of talk about the people who negotiated this treaty today, but I can say that, sitting in the room with those people in briefings and asking them questions, they felt as I did, that article 21 was essential to ensuring that this treaty was a success. It is easy to have hindsight, to look back and see that something is not perfect, but at that point in time this was the only path that was seen forward, not just for Canada but for the entire process. While appearing before the foreign affairs committee in the other place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

...we have to deal with the reality of the world that we live in. With this, if we had zero tolerance, we would probably get zero results. I think what we have is the capacity that Canada will not use these weapons, will not acquire them and Canada will eliminate its stockpile. That is a good accomplishment; 110 other countries joining us in doing that is more accomplishment. Hopefully, each and every year we can get one or two or more countries, and we can see a time when it will not be necessary for any country to want to possess let alone use these kinds of weapons.

The compromise established by article 21 is found in clause 11 of the prohibiting cluster munitions act. Since the convention calls for the use of penal law, it is necessary to ensure that members of the Canadian Forces and associated civilians who participate in military co-operation operations as permitted by the convention will not be subject to criminal liability for otherwise lawful activities in the service of our country. This protection would be achieved through exemptions from prohibitions. Our government has been clear that we will not jeopardize the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs or what we ask of them in the interests of our country.

Let me be clear. The exclusions in clause 11 do not permit or authorize any activity; they simply exclude these activities from new criminal offences that Bill S-10 would create. If these exclusions were not included in the act, there would be potential criminal liability for a wide range of frequent and lawful military co-operation activities with our closest allies, in particular, the United States. It does not intend to join the convention in the near future, and from my experience I do not expect it to. Obviously, it would not be fair to expose Canadian Armed Forces members to liability for doing their duty in the service of our country when participating in co-operation on operations with states that are not party to this convention.

To bring this to a real-world example of only a few years ago, if Canadian Forces personnel had been in a firefight in Afghanistan, they would have had to call air support from the United States of America, their military allies, who then could use cluster munitions. It is not fair to expose Canadian ground forces to being subject to penal law because their allies use this. It is very important that we not only look at it in context of treaties, but how it would affect men and women on the ground in the Canadian Forces who are risking their lives every day that they go beyond the wire.

It is important to note that the exclusions in clause 11 are carefully limited to activities that are committed by the convention itself and are necessary for effective military co-operation and operations. They only apply to persons who are engaged in activities related to military co-operation operations involving the Government of Canada. They also do not detract in any way from other applicable legal obligations on the part of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those established by existing international humanitarian law. The bill would create specific offences related to cluster munitions, and exceptions to those offences. However, nothing in the bill affects any other existing offence. If something is a crime today, it will still be a crime if and when Bill S-10 is enacted.

Members of the Canadian Forces will be fully subject to the prohibitions on the use of cluster munitions, in the same way as any other Canadian, unless they are engaged in a permitted form of military co-operation with a state that is not party to this convention. When members of the Canadian Forces are engaged in this type of co-operation, they are still prohibited from using cluster munitions if they are in exclusive control over the choice of the type of munitions they want to use. It is only in circumstances where that choice is partly or entirely under the control of the other country that the offences will not apply to Canadian Forces personnel.

I have been involved in this process, from a Canadian perspective and from a parliamentarian perspective, right from the beginning. As someone who has consistently lobbied and worked hard to make sure that not only the Canadian public understands the importance of this process, but the Government of Canada understands, I am very happy to see the steps that have been taken by the government to get this legislation quickly passed through the House of Commons. We will be able to stand up and say that once again Canada has taken the lead. Once again, Canada has asserted its moral authority to ensure we are a country that stands up, not only for countries, but for people who are less fortunate and need our support, our strength and our convictions. We can ensure that we, as a country, continue to be a leader when it comes to land mines and cluster munitions.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about our soldiers who go to war-torn countries to assist and protect these nations. He referred to certain articles and clauses.

I am particularly concerned about the children who die in these countries. Soldiers are adults who settle in a war-torn country. I am worried about the child who starts playing with what he thinks is a tennis ball, for example, only to have it blow up in his face. I would not want my children, here in Canada, to stumble upon a bomb like that.

Imagine that happening. Imagine if we found a bomb in our local park. We would cry from the rooftops and declare hell on earth. We would say that it was impossible, unacceptable.

Is that humanitarian aid? Is that the kind of assistance Canada wants to give? That really shocks and concerns me.

International humanitarian law prohibits parties in a conflict from inflicting needless wounds and suffering. It is important to distinguish between military objectives, civilian property and people's lives.

Using weapons that strike indiscriminately is a violation of international law. Cluster munitions impact hugely on civilian populations even post-conflict. Over half the victims of cluster munitions are children who stumble on unexploded sub-munitions.

Does my colleague agree that this weapon should be totally banned, and does he think that actions speak louder than words. You cannot look after other people if you do not know how.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to please put down the talking points and listen and engage in the dialogue that I have presented in the House of Commons. I mentioned the children at least three times. I have actually talked to children who have been victims of these cluster munitions.

When we talk about this and think about it in the context of the children, and when we think about it in the context of people who are today being affected by cluster munitions, this is legislation that I would certainly advocate time allocation for, to get it through the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

I do not understand how the members opposite can sit there and talk about process issues while those children they pretend to stand up and defend, and will potentially vote against, will be affected by this. The quicker we get this legislation through, the better we will be.

Is the legislation perfect? I do not think that any piece of legislation is perfect. However, certainly this piece of legislation is a significant step forward, and without it our country will not be one of the ratifying members. It is important that our country becomes one of the first members to ratify this legislation.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague speaks with great compassion on this issue. We have more or less indicated that we would support the bill going to committee.

I have two questions. One is on the issue of being open to amendments to ensure that some of the issues we have, and I suspect some of the issues the official opposition has, have the chance to be thoroughly understood and debated.

The second question is on time allocation. The Conservatives have introduced time allocation over 40 times. For the hon. member to suggest that the bill merits more time allocation than any of the others, the Conservatives have had time allocation on many bills that we all supported, when there was absolutely no reason for time allocation. I certainly expected that the Conservatives would use time allocation on this one as well.

However, it is a very important issue, and I would like a commitment from the member. Is he open to amendments? Would the government be open to amendments? Will the Conservatives actually allow all of us in the House to thoroughly debate something that is this important?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I may be mistaken, but I think time allocation has already been put in place on this legislation.

The member is a very respected member of the House of Commons. She has been a minister in a government, and she understands that I cannot dictate whether amendments would be seen or not. If the opposition hopes to bring forward amendments to this, I hope they make sure it is done in an open and transparent way so that we could all have an opportunity to talk about it. However, if the only amendment that would be brought forward is the amendment on interoperability, I think the point has been made very clearly, not only by the Government of Canada, but by many of our allies across the world, that this is an important component. Without the interoperability article 21, we would not have the Oslo treaty; we would not have 110 countries on side.

It is with the 110 countries on side that we get the moral authority to press others to make sure they become engaged in this, to make sure they sign on and do their part in ratifying and becoming part of this process.

It is very important that we move this legislation quickly through the House of Commons, that we move it through to royal assent, so we can continue to be one of the leaders when it comes to issues of land mines and cluster munitions.