Debates of June 11th, 2013

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague clarified a number of things for me, which I thought was very good and comprehensive.

When the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre was speaking a little earlier and I asked him a question about article 21, of course he failed to read the most important provision of article 21, which is clause 3. I assume he did that on purpose. It states:

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

I have a question for my hon. colleague. It is a fact situation that I would like to suggest to ask how he thinks the legislation that might have been proposed by the NDP would treat Canadian Forces in this situation. For example, what would happen if a Canadian ground commander, in a place like Afghanistan where they are operating with other countries—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am going to stop the hon. parliamentary secretary to allow the member for Westlock—St. Paul to respond. I know there are other members who are interested in asking questions.

The hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that in the parliamentary secretary's question he talked about Mr. Turcotte as being one of the lead negotiators for Canada on this. I know Mr. Turcotte well; I consider him a friend. I know where his heart is on this. However, at the end of the day, I believe that everybody involved in this understands the importance of Canada ratifying this treaty so we can continue to have a leadership role in the world.

I represent, as I said earlier, two Canadian Forces bases. The men and women of the Canadian Forces are happy that Canada has not only never used cluster munitions but is destroying the remaining stockpile that we have. It is only from that point of moral authority that we can continue to pressure other countries to follow the great example that is Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a question. He said we have to pass this bill in a hurry. He said he is happy that time allocation was put on it, which means we cannot discuss it in-depth. The same thing will happen at committee when the government wants to move a bill that quickly. Is he discouraged with his own government that we have been waiting since 2008 and we needed the Senate to bring the bill to the House? If it was that important, why did the Conservatives have to wait for the Senate to bring it in? Now that the Senate has brought it in, the elected members of Parliament cannot take the time to discuss it and do the real job that needs to be done. Is he not ashamed of the way his own government is acting on this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I am ashamed of is that the members on the other side continue to talk about process issues instead of the children who are affected by these cluster munitions. New Democrats would rather talk about process issues than making sure a treaty is ratified that is not only important to Canadians but specifically people in other countries who have been affected by cluster munitions.

I am disappointed that the opposition continues to want to talk about its lack of influence on the government. Quite frankly, I do not know care whether it was the other place that brought it forward or the House of Commons. I care that this is good legislation that needs to be passed so we can continue to be a leader in this area.

I know the member from the other side is a strong and respected member. However, I submit that he has been caught up in process rather than actual results for people around the world, particularly the children in Serbia and Lebanon who have been affected by these munitions.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I have the honour of sharing my time with the formidable member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who does an outstanding job as deputy foreign affairs critic. We in the NDP will never be grateful enough to her. We are fortunate to have her.

I am happy to speak about Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. There is no doubt that I would prefer to talk about climate change, investment in social housing or respect for the French language, since those subjects would appeal much more to the people in my riding, Québec.

However, we are here to talk once again about security. On the other hand, we will not be discussing the $3.1 billion lost in the fog, which the government is unable to justify. In the struggle against terrorism, how was it able to lose $3.1 billion? It is funny, by the way, because I do not know anyone who loses $3.1 billion for no reason.

With regard to Bill S-10, it is important to remember that cluster munitions are weapons that release hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area, within a very short time. They have a devastating effect on civilian populations that can last for years after conflict ends.

Handicap International reports on its website that since 1965, 16,816 victims of cluster munitions have been registered worldwide. Sixteen thousand eight hundred and sixteen. However, many accidents have not been reported, and the international observatory monitoring cluster munitions—Observatoire mondial des sous-munitions—estimates that the actual number of victims is somewhere between 58,000 and 85,000. What is more fascinating, or deplorable, I should say, is that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are reportedly civilians. Ninety-eight per cent. In other words, these weapons essentially target civilians.

In February 2007, noting that for decades, civilians had suffered whenever cluster munitions were used, Norway launched the Oslo process. Representatives of a number of countries supporting the development of new rules for cluster munitions met at a conference in Oslo. That was where the Convention on Cluster Munitions was born. This international disarmament treaty totally prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of such weapons and provides for their removal and destruction. It is as simple as that.

In 2008, Canada joined 108 countries in signing the treaty designed to prohibit cluster munitions. The agreement came into force in 2010 and has been ratified by 83 countries. Unfortunately, the United States, China and Russia did not take part in the process and continue to stockpile cluster munitions.

Since 2008, extensive discussions between the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence have led to the promotion by Canada of a position that is broadly perceived as mirroring that of the United States. Yet the United States possesses one-quarter of worldwide stocks of cluster munitions, which means about 4 billion bombs. Thus, the Canadian government has been delaying ratification of the treaty for more than four years now. It has thus waited all these years under a Conservative majority government. It is just as important to say that, too. It was not the NDP. Oh, no.

Today I rise in this House to oppose Bill S-10, because in reality, it is not an attempt to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but rather an attempt to build in exceptions. That is where the difference lies. We should stress that difference and understand it well, despite the last comments I heard from my colleagues opposite.

During the Senate hearings, numerous witnesses urged the federal government to amend the legislation. According to various academics and former disarmament officials, Bill S-10 would put Canada in violation of its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. It is important to state that, too.

Earl Turcotte, who led the Canadian delegation that negotiated the Convention on Cluster Munitions, resigned in protest against Canada’s attempt to impose a weak enabling act, because that is exactly what this is. As Mr. Turcotte put it, the legislation proposed by Canada is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions to date.

In fact, the Canadian law and penalties will be the weakest—one would think it was the law on mines that was being discussed—of all the countries that have signed the convention.

Nevertheless, if the government is short of good reasons for taking a hard line with respect to the use of cluster munitions, it should consider the fact that in 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Forces were killed and 112 others wounded in Afghanistan. Why? Because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other kinds of explosive weapons.

Bill S-10 has some significant omissions that could have fatal consequences for civilians. If the bill is passed in its current form, in fact, it would allow the Canadian Forces to help countries that have not signed the convention to use cluster munitions. That is the weakness of a bill like this. In some circumstances, the Canadian Forces could even use such weapons. Moreover, the bill does not state clearly that investments in this area are prohibited.

According to Senator Roméo Dallaire, Bill S-10 is flawed and puts members of Canada's armed forces face to face with a horrific moral and ethical dilemma. He said that the bill proposed by the government does not respect the spirit of the convention.

In fact, Bill S-10 will invalidate the convention rather than implement it. Once again, the government is moving backwards. Bill S-10 manoeuvres around the treaty's provisions and allows Canada to aid and abet the use of cluster munitions.

Thus, the Government of Canada has completely abandoned its international responsibilities and given in to pressure from the United States. Yet other countries such as Australia and New Zealand that are also allies of the United States stood up and ratified the convention without this kind of exception.

Former Australian Prime Minister Malcom Fraser 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.

It reminds me of the government's stand on climate change.

This is not the only arms treaty where the government has revealed itself to be timid, inadequate and regressive. Throughout the negotiations on the international arms treaty, an agreement that would end the global trade in conventional weapons, the Conservative government has maintained its unco-operative position.

In the end, we in the NDP have no other choice but to oppose Bill S-10, because its intent is not to ratify the convention as it should. It is a clear attempt to create a loophole. The Conservatives try to wiggle out of their responsibilities again and again. This is nothing new. We are getting familiar with it, after all these years.

The Conservatives must stop trying to undermine the international agreements to control the arms trade. In addition to weakening peace efforts, an unregulated arms trade leads to increased violence in conflict zones and even more civilian victims. Hundreds of thousands of people are killed every year because of armed conflicts. The Conservatives simply drag their feet or put forward legislation that is misleading—nasty, in fact.

It is unacceptable, and I hope that the government will finally decide to work with the NDP, the conscience of Parliament, at the committee stage, in order to make the necessary amendments to Bill S-10, so that we can move ahead with this convention, without all the detours the Conservatives have planned.

I have one interesting fact here: more than half the victims of cluster munitions are children, who are particularly attracted to unexploded sub-munitions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Mr. Turcotte. I wonder if she could comment on an article in which he was quoted in the Embassy newspaper.

It stated:

...there was no getting around the fact that, at least for the foreseeable future, Canadian soldiers would be operating in life and death situations with countries that do use them, notably the U.S.

The article then quoted Mr. Turcotte:

“I have the greatest admiration for what they are doing”, Mr. Turcotte said of the Canadian Forces, “and the last thing any of us wanted to do, myself included, was put Canadian soldiers at risk.”

The article further went on to say:

“I did my best to make the case and to provide assurances that if we did participate in this,” he said, “that we would negotiate an agreement that would protect the capacity of Canada to continue to work with our allies, whether or not they became party to this convention.”

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the quotes from Mr. Turcotte and relate them to article 21 of the convention.