Debates of June 11th, 2013

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that our colleague alluded to an ideal world and how it remains an impossible dream. However, I would say that we can create that ideal world. We can also improve things, even if it is just those that destroy lives. I think that Canada has a role to play in improving this world.

This bill is not an attempt to ratify the convention. It is an attempt to undermine it. It also undermines Canada's leadership in the world and our commitment to banning this terrible weapon.

My question is the following: since more than half of victims of cluster munitions are children—who are particularly attracted to unexploded cluster munitions, as my colleague pointed out in his speech—does the government agree that we must fully ban this weapon and that we must stop talking and start taking meaningful action?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely agree. We would like to see the complete prohibition and elimination of cluster munitions everywhere in the world, by every country in the world.

The fact is, though, that not every country in the world has at this point signed the convention. One of those countries is the United States, which is a significant ally. Our military is significantly involved with the United States, both in training and in interoperability in important conflicts around the world, such as Afghanistan, for example.

That member's party, along with all the parties in this House, ratified Canada's involvement with the international security forces in Afghanistan. That required our military to be there in harm's way and operate in conjunction with the United States and other countries, such as Poland, for example, which also has cluster munitions. We could not put our military personnel at risk for criminal prosecution or at risk for their own lives by putting them in a situation where they could not participate along with our allies.

What we will do under the convention, as she knows, is to advocate to the United States and every other country in the world that they should join with us in destroying their stockpiles of cluster munitions.

That is not something to be done by our military personnel; that is to be done by our government. Our government will be doing that at the United Nations and other important international forums around the world, as the case and opportunity arises.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise tonight and speak on this very important topic of the prohibiting cluster munitions act. This bill, which has received a significant amount of debate this evening, represents just one aspect of our government's commitment to addressing the humanitarian consequences and unacceptable harm to civilians caused by remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international treaty that builds on and complements other international agreements that address weapons that cause excessive injury or have indiscriminate effects.

Canada has long played a leading international role in the protection of civilians from the use of conventional weapons that are prone to indiscriminate effects because we have seen the devastating impact of that use. We have continued this long-standing commitment by taking part in international efforts to rid the world of cluster munitions, a weapon that Canada has never produced or used in its military operations.

Bill S-10 would allow us to continue these long-standing efforts by enabling Canada's ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. A ratification would send a strong signal of our unwavering commitment to reducing the impact of armed conflict on innocent civilians, whether in places like Syria where civilians suffer daily from the horrendous civil war, or in places like Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, which are massively contaminated with cluster munitions many years after the wars have ended. There are 24 countries and three other territories believed to be contaminated by cluster munitions remnants.

Cluster munitions are a very serious humanitarian concern. They can pose threats to civilians not only during attacks but afterwards. They have killed and maimed thousands of people, sometimes decades after conflicts have ended and often as they are going about their daily activities. Tragically, many of those injured are children who can mistake certain types of brightly coloured bomblets as toys. Unexploded munitions also have a negative effect on farmers and ranchers who cannot access land for growing crops and raising cattle. This stalls the development potential of whole communities trying to rebuild their lives after conflict.

Motivated by the harm caused to civilians by cluster munitions, the international community launched the Oslo process in February 2007 to negotiate a treaty that would ban cluster munitions. Negotiations took place over several meetings throughout 2007-08 and concluded with the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Dublin in May 2008 and its opening for signatures in December 2008.

Canada was an active participant throughout the Oslo process negotiations and was among the first countries to sign the convention. Today, 83 countries have ratified it and an additional 29 countries that have signed the convention. Most of our NATO allies have signed or ratified the convention.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions establishes a high humanitarian standard while preserving the capacity of countries that ratify the convention to continue to engage effectively in military co-operation with those countries outside the convention. The convention prohibits the use, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions. Specifically, it bans cluster munitions, sets deadlines for the destruction of stockpiles and clearance of contaminated areas, and establishes a framework for international co-operation and assistance so that victims receive the assistance they need in order to be able to live full and active lives.

Our government is already active in promoting the universalization and implementation of the convention with international partners and will continue doing so. Since 2006, Canada has contributed more than $200 million through 250 projects to this global effort, making us one of the world's top contributors.

For example, in February 2013, the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs announced $2.93 million to assist land mine survivors in Columbia, including children and youth, with recovery and reintegration into society.

We have also provided $3.9 million to address explosive remnants of war in Laos, the most heavily cluster munitions-affected country in the world. In Lebanon, we have provided $3.6 million to assist in risk education and the clearance of cluster munitions.

As others have mentioned before me, Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions in its operations. Over the past three decades, Canada had two types of cluster munitions in its inventory. The Canadian Armed Forces have initiated the process of destroying all of the cluster munitions and the last remaining inventory of cluster munitions has been removed from operational stocks and marked for destruction.

It is important to note that Bill S-10 represents only the legislative requirements under the convention. We continue to do much apart from the legislation and, to date, we have participated as an observer at the three meetings of states parties. We have already been voluntarily submitting annual transparency reports on implementation of the cluster munitions convention. Again, all of these activities are being implemented outside of the bill and before Canada's ratification of the convention. These steps show this government's strong commitment to ridding the world of these terrible weapons.

It was recognized during the Oslo process not all states would be in a position to immediately sign and join the convention. It was also recognized that in a real world, multilateral military operations that are crucial to international security require co-operation among states, including co-operation among states that renounce cluster munitions and those that do not.

Given these realities, Canada and others insisted that the new convention contain provisions permitting the continued ability to engage effectively in military operations with countries that have not ratified the convention. This was not just the Canadian position. It was shared by other countries. Without article 21, it was clear that a number of countries would not have been able to join the convention. From the start of the negotiations, the issue of military interoperability was a clear reality, as well as the need to ensure that countries ratifying the treaty would continue to collaborate militarily with countries that did not.

Canada and other states made strong statements to that effect as early as the Vienna conference in December 2007, as well as the Wellington conference in February 2008 and during the Dublin diplomatic conference in May 2008. The interoperability provisions of the convention found in article 21 allow the treaty to strike a delicate balance between a commitment to addressing the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions while still permitting states parties to preserve their own legitimate national security and defence interests.

This is an important balance for Canada, one that was prioritized early and often during the negotiations of the convention by Canada and several other allies, and one that remains shared by a number of key allies party to the convention. It allows us to carry out our will to rid the world of cluster munitions while ensuring that the Canadian Forces remain able to participate in multinational operations with Canada's key allies that are not party to the convention. Such operations are crucial to our national security interests and allow us to keep pulling our weight internationally. For Canada, authorizing our military personnel to carry out operations with the armed forces of a state not party to the convention allows us, among other things, to maintain our unique, co-operative relationship with the United States, which offers unparalleled benefits in terms of security, defence and industry.

The ratification legislation before the House, Bill S-10, would allow Canada to fully implement the convention's obligation in Canada's law. Bill S-10 would implement the parts of the convention that actually require legislation in Canada. The convention itself applies a number of obligations to Canada as a state party and one of these requires each state party to impose on persons within its jurisdiction the same prohibitions that apply to the states parties themselves. To do this, the proposed act sets out a series of prohibitions and offences and the technical definitions required to support their investigation and prosecution.

More specifically, the bill prohibits the use, development, making, acquisition, possession, foreign movement, and import and export of cluster munitions. In addition, stockpiling of cluster munitions on Canadian soil is not allowed by the bill, as it prohibits all forms of possession. The bill also prohibits any person from aiding and abetting anyone in the commission of prohibited activities, which includes direct and intentional investment in the production of cluster munitions.

The bill also sets out exceptions that reflect the convention's partial exclusions on some of its prohibitions from legitimate and permitted purposes, such as military co-operation between states parties and states that are not party, defensive research and training, and transfers for the purpose of destruction of stockpiles.

Since much of the debate on Bill S-10 has been centred on the interoperability exemptions provided for in clause 11 of the bill, let me address this specific issue. As already mentioned, the convention itself calls for the use of criminal law. As such, it is necessary to create exceptions to prohibitions established in this legislation in order to ensure that our men and women in uniform and the associated civilians who participate in military co-operation and operations permitted by the convention are not held criminally responsible for those acts when they are serving Canada.

These exceptions also apply to personnel serving in exchange, therefore preserving Canada's unique military co-operation with the United States, which provides unparalleled security, defence and industrial benefits as stated.

The exceptions of clause 11 of the bill do not permit or authorize any specific activity. They simply exclude these activities from the new criminal offences created by the law. If these exceptions are not included in the act, it would lead to criminal liability for a wide range of frequent military co-operation activities with our closest allies that are not party to the convention and that do not plan on ratifying it in the near future.

It is important to point out that these exceptions are permitted by the convention itself and apply only to the specific omissions created in the bill. Furthermore, these agreed exceptions apply only to the provisions of the convention itself and not to any other international humanitarian law instruments or customary legal principles. They do not detract in any way from other applicable legal obligations of members of the armed forces. In effect, these provisions permit working with other states only so long as this does not violate any other applicable obligations, including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks.

Let me emphasize that the Canadian Armed Forces members remain prohibited from themselves using cluster munitions in Canadian Armed Forces operations, and from expressly requesting their use when the choice of munitions to be used is under their exclusive control.

In addition, the Canadian Armed Forces, as a matter of policy, will prohibit their members from themselves using cluster munitions and from training and instructing in the use of cluster munitions when on exchange with other states' armed forces. The transportation of cluster munitions aboard carriers belonging to or under the control of Canadian Armed Forces will also not be permitted by policy.

Even though the Convention on Cluster Munitions is still young, there has already been progress. Countries that ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions are obligated to clear areas contaminated by cluster munitions as soon as possible, and no later than 10 years after entry into force of the convention for that state party.

In 2011, more than 52,000 unexploded submunitions were destroyed during clearance operations across ten states and two other areas. Formerly contaminated land is now being reclaimed and used. People in those cleared areas can work, walk safely to their home, to school and to work. Farmers can till their fields. Children can play outside like children all around the world should.

The needs of victims are starting to be addressed. Collectively, countries need to maintain efforts to prevent further casualties.

Canada is committed to the eradication of cluster munitions and must continue to do its part in this effort. Canada's ratification of the Convention on cluster munitions will be a key step in that direction.

It is time that Canada joins others in ratifying this important convention. This is why we have tabled this legislation that will enable Canada to become a state party. We are particularly proud of Canada's important role in striking the convention's essential balance between humanitarian and legitimate security concerns and ultimately paving the way for ratification of the convention by a larger number of countries than would have been the case otherwise.

I think we can all agree on the importance of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the need for the House to pass Bill S-10 quickly.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to have good faith discussions with all parties in an effort to manage government business of the House, and based on those discussions, I would like to propose, for unanimous consent, the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Wednesday, June 12, when the House resumes debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which is also known as the combating counterfeit products act: (a) no more than two members from the Conservative Party, fifteen members from the New Democratic Party and two members from the Liberal Party and any independent member may speak, after which every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (b) if a recorded division is demanded, the vote shall be deemed deferred to Thursday, June 13, following the time provided for oral questions; (c) if the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-56 are not completed by the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit for the purpose of completing the proceedings; and (d) after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-56—Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a lot of interest tonight to this debate, and it seems to me and to many of my colleagues on this side that the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to tell Canadians that they are deeply against cluster munitions, as we are, and I believe most Canadians would be. We support the ban on cluster munitions, and yet we are concerned about the loophole they have put in the bill that would allow the Canadian government and the military to facilitate in some instances perhaps even the transit through Canadian territory by Canadian military assets of these munitions, which we are all in agreement should be banned.

How are Canadians to view the government's real commitment to this? What we see time and time again with the government is a lack of willingness to stand up for Canada and Canadian values on the world stage and consistent buckling under to the pressure of its friends south of the border.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first correct the transportation issue. That is allowed only with their planes. As an example, if they were to move cluster bombs from the United States to Alaska, they could pass our territory, but in their own planes.

However, let us talk about some of our allies. We mentioned the United States, and that is probably our biggest ally, but within NATO, for instance, there is Poland, or let us take a country like Turkey. Turkey has still not ratified this, but is living next door to a failed nation that uses nerve gas. God forbid if we were to be involved in something like that. As a NATO partner, if we were to partner with Turkey, our Canadian Armed Forces would be subject to criminal activity if they participated with a country like Turkey.

This was the narrow band and the dilemma that, as we ratified this agreement, we had to come to grips with. There are countries that have not ratified. There are countries that still use cluster weapons, for whatever reason. However, we need to ensure that our men and women are protected and that when they did participate in another arena, they would not be prosecuted simply because they participated with another country that had not ratified this agreement.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member. I understand that it is late, but there are obviously some contradictions. Perhaps I will take over from the member for Davenport.

Just to get this right, the member for the Conservative government is saying that we are going to agree to the treaty on banning the use of cluster munitions, but we are not actually going to implement that treaty if it affects any of our military operations anywhere in the world, whether that be with countries that have signed on to this treaty or with countries that have not. That is what I am hearing.

However, I have also been checking on how many countries have had that same interpretation. Countries like Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden and others actually agree with this definition. Therefore, why bother? Why are we doing this if we are not going to respect the bill that is being debated?

[Dave Van Kesteren]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where I can go past my previous answer. I include another country, Israel.

There are countries that have not agreed to the ratification of this agreement, and that is a reality. Those countries are our allies. We were struck with a dilemma as we proceeded with this bill, that there would be a possibility there would be times that we would be engaged with another nation that had not ratified that agreement. I have mentioned the United States, which has been used a number of times, but Poland and Turkey are NATO members and Israel is an ally.

There are countries that have not ratified those agreements, so it is necessary. This was something that took some deliberation and kind of a tight balancing act. Along with countries like Australia and the U.K. and to some extent other countries, although maybe not to the extent that Canada has, we feel we have managed to address that very volatile situation.

The other thing we should also remember as members is that as we continue to show our presence and to set out our ideals to the world, it is within our intent, and I think the intent of all the countries that have signed the agreement, to encourage those other countries to also ratify this agreement. This should be something we should all work toward as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the good work he does on the foreign affairs committee.

I would like him to imagine what the Canadian legislation might be like without clause 11, and ask him for a scenario that could exist where a Canadian commander was under close attack with Canadian troops and called in American support in a situation such as we had in Afghanistan and the American pilot dropped a cluster bomb.

If we did not have clause 11, would the Canadian officer be legally responsible? If he had suspected cluster munitions would be used, should he have not allowed those to be used and put his Canadian soldiers at risk? What would the legislation look like if the opposition members had their way? Could member answer those question?

[Dave Van Kesteren]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that were that the case, the officer would be subject to the act as a result of his breaking the law, quite frankly. He absolutely would be held responsible.

It is a prudent thing to do and it is a reality of war. It is a reality of the current situation. We have engaged with the Americans.

There was a question a little earlier where we talked about New Zealand. Yes, New Zealand has perhaps a different twist on this, but the reality of the situation is that it is highly unlikely that New Zealand will participate with the United States or Turkey. We hope this is not the situation. However, these situations may arise and it is prudent for us as a nation to safeguard our men and women should we go into combat or should we go into a theatre with the United States or any country.

We continue to encourage those countries to follow this direction, and it is our hope that these terrible weapons will be eradicated from the world.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the government is prepared to amend this bill in committee to make it the best in the world, or whether the government wants Canada to be seen on the world stage as timid, inadequate and regressive.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here tonight. That is why we debate these things honestly and openly.

We would consider, if there were an amendment that we could agree on, it as part of the process, and I would certainly invite that as well.

This is the second reading stage of the bill. It needs to go to committee, and usually committee is the place where that is addressed.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but begin by drawing attention to the fact that, yet again, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose in the House a few minutes ago and sought unanimous consent to rush through another government bill. Of course, he failed to get unanimous consent, so he served notice that the government intends to bring in time allocation. I would point out that it will be the 46th time that it has happened with the Conservative government, which is a record among all governments.

I want to bring this up because it is 11 o'clock at night, we are sitting until midnight and we are debating legislation that has been sitting around for years. This particular bill that we are debating tonight, Bill S-10, is one such example. It is really quite extraordinary that we have a government that is so contemptuous of democratic practice.

We are here as parliamentarians to uphold democratic practice for our constituents and for all Canadians. That is what we do in this place, we debate legislation. I consider it an affront to all members of Parliament, but particularly the opposition, because our job is to analyze legislation, scrutinize it and hold the government to account. That is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. To see the government time and time again without purpose and rational reason, but for political reasons, rush through legislation and cut off legitimate debate in the House is deeply disturbing.

I just wanted to begin my remarks with that, because it has become so routine that we now come back to the House during the day, interrupting committees and other business, to vote on these time allocations. Even we, ourselves, forget just how sickening it is in terms of what this process is about and how bad it has become. The government now does not even blink an eye. It has just become its modus operandi, its MO, in terms of how it does its business. That is a pretty sad day for Canadian democracy.

The bill before us tonight that is being debated, Bill S-10, deals with the ratification of the treaty on cluster munitions. It is surely a very important bill, as the convention is very important too. Many of my colleagues tonight have given wonderful descriptions and oversight of the importance of this issue and the fact that these cluster munitions are now stockpiled to the amount of something like four billion. That is incredible when we think of the harm that is being done to civilian populations. We do know that 98% of all recorded cluster munitions casualties have been civilians. They are innocent people.

We know that these cluster munitions, or bomblets as they are sometimes called because they are very small, can do tremendous harm, if not killing people, then maiming them for life. We have seen this in many countries. I think there are about 37 countries that have been engaged in actions where cluster munitions have been in effect.

Clearly, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. Canada has historically had a very good record. The Ottawa agreement on banning land mines began in Ottawa. The global momentum came from this country. We have a very honourable record on some of these issues. Canadians have been very proud over the decades to be advocates for nuclear disarmament and for disarmament generally. Certainly, when we look at these inhuman cluster munitions and the damage that they do, we can all recognize that a convention that would ban their operation is critically important to real human security.

We live in such a militarized world. We live in a world where the resolution of conflict often becomes a military resolution. We have seen a global situation where diplomacy often takes a back seat. One thing that really worries us is that we now see a Conservative government in this country that seems to have a mindset that sees military operation as a higher priority. We have seen diplomatic actions and the role that Canada has played historically as something that becomes more minimal in its approach. That is very disturbing.

That is why, when Canada signed this convention in 2008, it was seen as a progressive thing, as a good step, a good step forward.

We know that 111 countries have now signed the convention and 68 have ratified the convention. Once the convention has been signed, it is still up to individual countries to then bring in their own legislation to ratify, which is what we are debating tonight.

Clearly, we would all like to see those remaining countries sign the convention. However, what we are debating here tonight is what Canada's position is, what Canada has done, and what the government is proposing.

The first thing I would do is echo the comments of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who asked the obvious question as to why this legislation has been sitting around for so incredibly long. It was signed in 2008. It did not get tabled in the House of Commons until December 2012. Then it went to the Senate and hung around there some more, yet here we are, jamming it through at the last minute, at 11 o'clock at night with, really, no regular debate.

I think, number one, it becomes very suspect as to what the government's agenda is and the fact that it is not willing to allow this legislation to stand the rigorous test that all legislation must live up to. That is our role, but it is also the government's role.

Therefore, number one, I want to put in the debate that we are very concerned about the timing of this bill and how the government deliberately seemed to allow this bill to lapse for so long and now is now rushing it through when, presumably, not many people are paying attention so late at night. We know that many Canadians are concerned about this issue.

One of my colleagues tonight spoke eloquently about the thousands of young people who have signed petitions in support of the convention and expressed their concern about these cluster munitions. We know that people are very concerned about this issue. They want to see our government do the best it can do—not the minimal, not the lowest common denominator, but the best effort that we can do.

When we examine this legislation and look at what other countries are doing and look at what experts are saying, we come to the conclusion that this bill, Bill S-10, is flawed. It would not live up to the convention. In fact, it would undermine the convention.

We hear what others who have been very involved in this issue have said. For example, the former DFAIT negotiator, Mr. Earl Turcotte, stated, “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.” That is a very a strong statement. That is coming from the former negotiator for Canada on the convention. Surely the government would listen to this kind of expert advice, but apparently it is being ignored.

Then the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, stated, “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.” Again, these are very strong and quite astounding words to hear from an ally, a former prime minister of Australia, about this Canadian legislation.

Many of my colleagues tonight have painstakingly gone through the legislation and shown point by point, but particularly in section 11, how this legislation would not meet the standard that needs to be met in order to live up to the substance and the principle of the convention before us.

I would quote one other expert source, and that is Mines Action Canada. It did a comparison between Australian and the U.K. and then looked at current best practices of various aspects of the bill, including New Zealand and Belgium.

It too comes to some analysis that I think should set off the alarm bells for us in terms of what Bill S-10 is all about. It states, “Canada's legislation allows Canadians to be more proactive in their involvement with the use of cluster munitions, which we feel runs counter to the prohibition on assistance. Section 11 seems to go further than any other legislation worldwide in permitting Canadians themselves to use cluster munitions in very specific cases. This is an unacceptable deviation from the spirit and letter of the convention and from Canada's commitment to lessening the humanitarian impact of conflict.”

It further states, “Section 11, paragraph 2, regarding Canadian transport of cluster munitions, has no equivalent in the draft Australian legislation or in the U.K. legislation, again showing how far Canada's legislation has strayed from the spirit of the convention on cluster munitions”.

These are not ambiguous words that the representatives of Mines Action Canada are using. It is not fuzzy. They are stating quite clearly that from their expert analysis the bill is leaving Canada in a very ambiguous position. It would leave our Canadian Forces in a very ambiguous and uncertain position. I do not think that is acceptable.

I am glad that my colleague asked a question just now as to whether the government is willing to look at amendments when this bill goes to committee. It presumably will, because it is under time allocation. The member responded that if we could all agree, there could be an amendment.

However, again we get back to this process issue of a travesty when legislation goes before a committee. The government is hell-bent on getting something through and is not willing to consider amendments that are eminently reasonable and rational and actually seek to improve the legislation. There are hundreds of examples of this happening, although with the bill before us we feel particularly bad because it is based on an international convention, and there is a great history of how these conventions can help with global security.

Surely it is incumbent upon Canadians, through our government, to ensure the legislation we have is the very best it can be, not the worst. It is very disconcerting that according to a number of these experts, Canada is doing the least it can do. Worse than that, it would produce conflict between the convention and the bill, this so-called “ratification”. It is not really a ratification at all, but something that is contrary to the bill.

We will debate Bill S-10 as long as we possibly can. The bill will go to committee, and we will do everything we can at the committee. With due diligence and in good faith, we will try to improve it, and it will come back under time allocation, I have no doubt.

We have to alert Canadians as to the appalling agenda that the Conservative government has, not only in terms of what it does but also in terms of how it does it. It flies in the face of democratic practice.

I hope we will get another opportunity to debate this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 11:14 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 12, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-6, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.