Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Newmarket—Aurora that this convention is extremely important. Canada did sign on early, and that is why I am baffled. Maybe she could explain to me why there are these carve-outs.
I am looking at page 7 of the bill, subclause 11(3). It is not related to the movement of cluster munitions for the purpose of destroying them; that is a different section. This section says that earlier prohibitions do not apply to a person in the course of military co-operation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state not a party to the convention—which would include, for instance, the United States—for “aiding, abetting or counselling another person to commit any act referred to in paragraph 6(a) to (d) if it would not be an offence for that other person to commit that act”.
In other words, it looks to me as though we have a carve-out here that lets Canada help the United States invest in cluster munitions, use cluster munitions and transfer them in shared co-operative action.
If we are to adhere to the convention, should we not remove subsection 11(3) so that it is clear that we are not speaking out of both sides of our mouth?