Debates of June 11th, 2013

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's thoughtful speech. It was actually a reflection on what exactly has happened. Obviously Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the convention.

Canada has undertaken its responsibility the way that Canadians would expect: that it be responsible and be a proactive member in ensuring that these types of things are dealt with in the international community.

There are two things I would like to have the parliamentary secretary reflect on. First, I would like her to reflect on Canada's history when it comes to these particular munitions.

Second, I would also like the parliamentary secretary to reflect on what our allies are doing. Obviously we have heard members opposite wax eloquent on different aspects of the problems with these types of munitions. I am wondering how Canada's response resembles what has been done by other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our allies are working in concert with us, because they too, the United Kingdom and Australia, have done the same. These are the allies we work with in many situations with our military, and they are on side with us. They want to see cluster munitions eradicated from the world.

I would like to read from the very beginning of what this convention says. It is what Canada is signing on to. It says we are:

...deeply concerned that civilian populations and individual civilians continue to bear the brunt of armed conflict

and that we are

...determined to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions...concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians...deeply concerned also at the dangers presented by the large national stockpiles...believing it necessary to contribute effectively to an efficient, coordinated manner to resolving the challenge....

These are the kinds of things that we and our allies are signing on to. We want to see these cluster munition stockpiles disposed of. We want to be a leader, and Canada is doing that through this legislation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world I suppose that is what we would all want, but we have to live in reality, and the reality is that the United States is our closest ally. We work very closely with the Americans in many military operations, and we do not want to see our Canadian Armed Forces charged with a criminal offence because they are working with our partners and doing what we have asked them to do.

We have said very clearly that Canadian Armed Forces would not be commanding the use of cluster munitions. We have been very strict with that, but we also have to live in reality.

Is this a perfect world? Absolutely not, but this is a starting point. It is perhaps not perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. As we have said throughout this, we will continue to urge other parties around the globe to participate in this convention and to rid the world of these terrible munitions.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, cluster bombs are morally and ethically reprehensible. They are inhumane. There can be no prevarication. There can be no qualifying of our condemnation. We should be absolute and thorough in our condemnation. We should not dedicate two whole pages of the enabling legislation to provide an exit strategy, an out, a loophole that we can drive a truck through to, where we can do anything in terms of handling, enabling, aiding and abetting. As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out, subsection 3 is a road map for how to continue using cluster bombs.

The Parliamentary Secretary over there was the chief apologist, a champion of cluster bombs, it would seem. He was the number one apologist for justifying when and where they are applicable and necessary. That is not the tone we want to set in the Canadian House of Commons.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we do not live in a perfect world. We have a responsibility, as the Canadian Parliament, to take a step forward to ensure that we do what we can in Canada to make sure the world is rid of this terrible ordnance. Therefore, we are taking a leadership role. We will continue to urge other parties to be signatories to this convention as we show leadership in our own House.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my speaking time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

In 1997, Canada distinguished itself on the world stage by hosting the meetings on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

Those important meetings led to the signing of the Ottawa treaty, which made it possible to reduce the number of innocent civilian victims during and after military conflicts. The treaty concerned anti-personnel mines, but there is another threat to which Canada could respond with genuine leadership: cluster munitions.

It is a brilliant invention: deploy a bomb that deploys hundreds of bomblets. Why not just deploy a bigger, more accurate bomb? That is true military genius. The bomblets, which do not explode immediately, cover an area the size of four football fields and are transformed into anti-personnel mines. Some of our soldiers are injured by those mines.

On initial impact, 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians. As the bomblets are very colourful and remain in place for years after the bombing, children are the most common victims following a military conflict.

If Canada has committed to opposing anti-personnel mines, why has it done nothing tangible to combat this inhuman invention? My position on this issue is clear. I am opposed to Bill S-10 and I am going to show how it does nothing to assist in controlling cluster munitions. When I see these bomblets, I think of our children and of my grandchildren, who could be seriously injured or killed by them.

Even more so since the aim of this bill appears to be to facilitate their use.

The 2008 Oslo treaty became the next logical step after the Ottawa treaty since its purpose was to prohibit cluster munitions. Several of the greatest weapons-producing countries, such as China, the United States and Russia, decided not to take part in the Oslo process. Unfortunately, it appears that Canada bowed to American lobbyists to ensure the plan would not be successful.

Unlike the United States, Canada took part in the Oslo process. Rather than refuse to participate, it managed to negotiate the inclusion of an article permitting ongoing military interoperability with states not party to the convention in the final text of the convention. This loophole in article 21 of the convention makes it possible for a signatory country to tolerate the status quo. It goes without saying that the scope of the Oslo process was dramatically reduced.

The idea of an act to implement the convention is an excellent one, but what we have here more closely resembles an insurance policy for the military-industrial complex. Considering that the position the government has adopted is largely modelled on that of the United States, it is fair to ask what has happened to Canada's sovereignty.

What will the Conservatives say? That this is good for the economy? What economy? What will they say to the 50,000 victims of cluster munitions in Laos, who are poor people and mostly civilians?

I also wonder what arguments the Conservatives will offer our soldiers returning from Afghanistan injured as a result of the use of this icon of human technical knowledge.

I thought the Conservatives were tough on crime, but I am disappointed they have chosen to be soft on humanitarian international law, which cluster munitions violate outright.

That law includes the principle of distinction, which requires weapons to be directed at combatants with a certain degree of accuracy. I should point out that 98% of victims in this instance are civilians.

The principle of humanity is also violated by cluster munitions because they cause enormous, long-lasting damage to the natural environment.

In addition, between 5% and 40% of sub-munitions do not explode on initial deployment and are guaranteed to cause losses following a conflict.

Lastly, there are the principles of prohibition of superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering. Following combat, a site infested with cluster munitions causes even more harm to innocent victims, very many of them children who may not even have been born at the time of the conflict.

However, what is the point of reminding people that these weapons are so inhumane, the Conservatives introduced a bill to prohibit them? To put it simply, perhaps the purpose of this bill is not really to prohibit them.

Instead of implementing the convention, Bill S-10 instead affirms that the Conservatives have chosen their camp, the camp of needless slaughter.

Tough on crime? Pro-life? Really?

This is laughable. These are nothing but slogans that fail to conceal the fact that the Conservatives are soft when it really counts. Instead I see a narrow-minded group of people bowing to U.S. demands so they do not have to face their own consciences.

I am not alone in thinking so. The former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, said it was a pity the current Canadian government did not provide any real leadership to the world on cluster munitions. He added that its approach was timid, inadequate and regressive.

The Conservatives have long since chosen to act as lackeys to the great powers, and their fawning will eventually deflate their image as tough guys. This applies to climate change and the tar sands, the Canadian economy, which they are shamelessly undermining, and now Canada’s international reputation.

But they will not drag us down when they fall. Canada is big enough and strong enough to show them the door quickly.

People will say I am using a broad brush, but in my opinion, this bill says a great deal about how this government operates with respect to legislation. They do things in a hurry, they are lazy, and they only want to please their friends. Bill S-10 is no small matter, but we have very little time in which to discuss it.

Earl Turcotte, former coordinator of the mine action program at DFAIT, led the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned when the government tried to impose a weak enabling act, saying that the proposed law was the worst of all the laws passed by countries that had so far ratified or signed the Convention. The worst! Not the second-worst, the best of the not bad, or the fourteenth, but the worst.

With that, I believe I have nothing more to add, except that the disproportionate zeal this government puts into the funding or promotion of its party might better be put into a healthy approach to legislation. Laws require time and study, and their objectives should be to help people. It is not enough to spend a few hours discussing such an important bill. Above all, it should not be said that this is to protect children.

These are all targets that Bill S-10 fails to hit, because this is a law that is as disastrous as a cluster munition.

I hope the members opposite understand that there will be collateral damage.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about clause 11 of Bill S-10, and I wonder if she could take us through it. I would like her to be very specific on the related provisions in the Australian legislation and the United Kingdom legislation, and tell us, in her opinion, in a very detailed way, how those provisions differ in terms of interoperability with the provisions of clause 11 in Bill S-10. I would like specific answers to those questions.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was such a long question it can hardly be answered.

The New Democrats fully supported the development of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. However, this bill undermines the convention instead of ensuring its implementation. What does the government have to say to that?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, 34 countries are known to have produced over 210 different types of air-dropped cluster munitions and surface-launched cluster munitions.

At least 13 countries have transferred over 50 types of cluster munitions to least 60 other countries. Billions of cluster bombs are currently stockpiled by some 78 countries worldwide, and around half of these countries have now agreed to destroy them.

On average, 25% of civilian casualties are children, and in some areas it is more than 50%. The children are attracted to them because they are small and are in curious shapes.

Cluster munitions are an indiscriminate weapon intended to main, cripple and kill. Why is the government weakening the law and the spirit of the convention?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

Why is the government weakening this law? The question should perhaps be put to the Conservatives. I cannot in fact answer the question, because I cannot get into the minds of the Conservatives. However, I can say that I find all this quite simply a pity. When I read the bill, I thought about my eight grandchildren. Some of us have children, and we would not want those bombs to be anywhere near us.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. Of course, she spoke of the fact that 98% of civilian victims are casualties of these cluster bombs. She pointed out that these munitions lack any precision as to their targets. Because of that, casualties occur even after the conflict has ended.

I would like to ask my colleague for her comments on this state of affairs. She touched on it in her speech, but I would like her to give us more details about her opposition to the bill.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

Ninety-eight per cent of victims are civilians, including children. Personally, I thought that these cluster munitions were intended to kill the enemy—other soldiers—but not civilians. Are these bombs—for they are real bombs—intended to kill civilians? Are they intended to wound soldiers who will be disabled for life? Some Canadian soldiers coming home from Afghanistan are permanently disabled. This is a terrible thing for them, their families, and our society. These people are not able to do all they once could and then they must look for work.

I think that 98% of civilian victims is really a huge number. Why make the bombs? In fact, why make war?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are examining a bill that comes to us from the Senate, Bill S-10, an Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

For some weeks now, we have been here, gathered together late in the evening, to debate bills that the Conservative government wants to push through Parliament. Although we in the official opposition are proud to rise and represent the interests of our constituents, discuss matters of substance, propose better solutions and put forward concrete amendments, I would like to underline the fact that the procedure whereby we are here to talk about Bill S-10 this evening is unacceptable.

The Conservative government is forcing Parliament’s hand to have its bills passed as quickly as possible by using time allocation motions—the 45th one today—and many last-minute votes.

What happened to the time traditionally allocated for debate, in-depth, non-partisan studies by parliamentary committees and government consultations with national and international experts? All of these steps are essential to the democratic process of drafting legislation before bringing it for a vote in the House of Commons. I am raising these procedural points on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP. We will be trying to have Bill S-10 amended in committee.

We are opposed to Bill S-10 as it stands because, although its title appears to say that its purpose is to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in reality, it does not implement it, it destroys it. Bill S-10 serves to set Canada against the 110 other countries that have signed the convention and the 68 that have already ratified it. The bill will be used as a place for the Conservative government to hide. It is an attempt to make an exception to the convention. The NDP cannot stand behind an approach that is, in the words of former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, timid, inadequate and regressive.

So that all my colleagues in this House are just as informed about cluster munitions as my constituents are, I would like to define some terms. The Convention on Cluster Munitions is an international disarmament and humanitarian treaty that bans the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions and provides for their clearance and destruction.

The 111 states that signed the Wellington declaration took part in a conference in Dublin, Ireland, thereby supporting the draft convention. These states included Canada. The convention was adopted on May 30, 2008 and Canada signed the convention on December 3, 2008. In signing the convention in 2008, Canada made a number of commitments.

Canada committed primarily not to use cluster munitions; not to develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone cluster munitions; and not to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention.

It also committed to destroy the cluster munitions in its arsenal no later than eight years after the convention enters into force, and to clear and destroy, or ensure the clearance and destruction of, cluster munition remnants located in contaminated areas under its jurisdiction.

Furthermore, Canada must provide assistance to the victims of cluster munitions in areas under its jurisdiction, provide assistance to other states parties to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the convention, and take all legislative measures necessary to implement the convention.

Article 2 of the convention reads as follows:

“Cluster munition” means a conventional munitions that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions.

Cluster munitions were used on battlefields in World War I and more recent conflicts, including Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. These weapons disperse hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. Nobody can escape them.

It is sad to say, but 98% of all injuries resulting from cluster munitions are inflicted upon civilians. According to the Cluster Munition Coalition, over 25% of victims of cluster munitions are children, who are especially drawn to unexploded sub-munitions. The bombs look like toys, and up to 30% of them do not explode upon contact with the ground. These bombs patiently lie in wait for their victims.

The Conservative government wants to vote for a bill that will annul Canada's commitment to the victims of cluster munitions.

This is not just about past victims, but current and future victims.

Bill S-10 will, in fact, invalidate the convention. It circumvents the interoperability provision, allowing Canada to aid, abet, counsel and conspire to use cluster munitions.

Why is the government, which negotiated and signed the 2008 convention, doing an about-face? Does the government not agree that these weapons must be completely banned and that Canada needs to walk the talk?

Speaking of taking action, I would like to congratulate the many Canadians who have signed petitions calling on the government to act responsibly and ban cluster munitions. I commend my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, who took receipt of these petitions and tabled them in the House.

Just like the NDP, the people of our great country are calling for amendments to Bill S-10. They are asking that no Canadian be liable for their involvement in the use, production, purchase or sale of cluster munitions or financial investment in these activities. They are calling on the Government of Canada to make a positive and ongoing commitment to the convention it signed in 2008, as an addendum to Bill S-10. They are urging the Government of Canada to recognize the massive impact that cluster munitions have on civilian populations in wartime and for decades thereafter.

I would like to quote Mines Action Canada:

…no Canadian should ever be implicated in the use of cluster bombs for any purpose, in any location, or on any mission.

According to Paul Hannon, the director of Mines Action Canada, Canada should have the best implementation legislation in the world. We should be the frontrunners. That is absolutely not the case given the bill before us this evening.

I encourage everyone to sign the petition from Handicap International Canada against cluster bombs. To date, the petition has 708,318 signatories. I would also like to commend my colleague from Ottawa Centre on the excellent work that he has done in this area.

Globally, unexploded sub-munitions and land mines kill some 4,000 civilians each year. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan as a result of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. These weapons are dangerous because they are virtually uncontrollable, even long after an armed conflict has ended. These weapons are unacceptable.

Bill S–10 taints Canada's record in terms of leadership on issues of international importance. If it is passed in its current form, this legislation will be the weakest legislation in the world when compared to that of the 110 other countries that have signed the convention, yet thanks to the amendments suggested by the NDP, Canada could redeem itself and win back its role as a protector and defender of human rights, including victims' rights.

Why is the government bent on undermining all these efforts? There was a brighter day. In 1997, thanks to Canada's leadership, the treaty prohibiting land mines, better known as the Ottawa treaty, became the most ratified disarmament treaty in history. In memory of this historic moment, I hope that all my colleagues, across all parties, will support the NDP's efforts and the amendments that it puts forward.

In closing, I would like to quote an article that Craig and Marc Kielburger wrote last year, on Remembrance Day. Craig and Marc Kielburger are two exceptional young Canadians who founded the not-for-profit organization called Free the Children. They continue to encourage over 100,000 young people every year to get involved in their community and promote justice, peace and social solidarity.

This week we pay homage to Canadians who served and died to uphold global peace and freedom. What better way to honour their sacrifices than to advance peace by eliminating a weapon that kills and maims hundreds of children every year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member a question that I asked her colleague who spoke previously. Her colleague, unfortunately, was unable to answer the question, I suspect because she had not taken the time to look at the U.K. or the Australian legislation which she said compared better to Canada, in terms of the interoperability provisions of section 11.

Could this member take us through the U.K. legislation, the Australian legislation and section 11 of Bill S-10, and tell us how the Canadian legislation differs from the U.K. and Australian legislation in terms of allowing interoperability with states that do use cluster munitions?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I have compared the Canadian legislation the Conservatives have put before us with other laws, because according to a number of experts, this legislation is very weak. That is where I want to focus my comments; that is what I want to put the emphasis on.

The government is refusing to ratify a convention that will save lives. Consequently, whether in relation to section 11 or any other, and by comparison with any other country, we are looking at a government that has knuckled under to lobbying by the United States. It tells itself that it did a good job in 2008, but it is going to forget that and water the legislation down to make it very weak.

I don’t need to compare us to every other countries. We had a good convention that the Conservatives now refuse to ratify, and that is where the problem lies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really disingenuous to have a government member ask another member to in basically 30 seconds compare a piece of legislation to two other countries. It is absurd. We are here today debating this legislation the government has put forward as compared to the treaty. That is what is important.

Anything we look at tells us that Bill S-10 is undermining the very treaty that was signed by Canada. I am very glad that my hon. colleague raised the fact that there are thousands of young Canadians who have signed this petition. It is really distressing that they had the best expectations that the government would bring forward a bill that would actually meet the spirit, principle, intent and substance of that treaty, yet this legislation has failed.

I am very glad that the member made the point she did tonight. I think it shows how far removed the government has become from not only the feelings of Canadians but even from meeting the spirit and the substance of a treaty Canada has signed.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

It is indeed a great shame that the government does not listen to the people. Since I have been in this House, we have tabled a number of petitions. Of all those I tabled, none was favourably received by the government. This government is highly ideological.

This evening, for example, I heard speeches that were very ideological. The government is not at all prepared to hear talk of amendments, or discuss them with us. All the time allocation motions make that very clear. Today we saw the 45th such motion. That, in fact, is a record in the history of Parliament.

This government knows only one road, and follows a single path without ever leaving it. It listens neither to experts nor to Canadians, who want only to be heard. It is a pity. When I see the low voter turnout during elections, I find it scandalous, but with such a government, people do not even feel they are being listened to.

I mentioned this in my speech, because I find it is crucial to realize that so many Canadians have asked the government to ratify this convention, and the government is quite simply not listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the second reading debate of Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act. I am pleased to hear from some who have already spoken about why the Convention on Cluster Munitions is needed so urgently and why it is important that the House pass Bill S-10 quickly.

The need is obvious. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated many times, and as was repeated just hours ago by the Minister of National Defence, our government is proud of the active role we played in the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I might add that this included Mr. Turcotte, who was at all three meetings of the cluster munitions convention negotiations and who negotiated specifically article 21, which the opposition does not want to talk about, to provide for the interoperability of Canadian Armed Forces with its allies.

We were committed to this cause at that time, and we remain just as committed today. However, there remains one outstanding issue, that of interoperability. As much as we would like to live in an ideal world, we do not. As much as we would like to live in a world where every country has signed on to the convention, we do not.

In the real world, the Canadian Armed Forces co-operates closely with our American allies and undertakes many joint missions. We actively second military personnel to each other's armed forces. These secondments strengthen the co-operation between our armed forces and improve the security and safety of all Canadians. These secondments are an opportunity for Canadians to gain significant experience abroad and to return that much stronger. Such co-operation between the Canadian and American militaries is both necessary and desirable. That is the reality of the world we live in.

In order for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces to be able to work closely and effectively with their American counterparts, a clause in the Convention on Cluster Munitions was needed to allow Canada and the other countries to sign the treaty while allowing them at the same time to continue co-operating with the armed forces of those countries that have not signed the convention. It is for this reason that Canada, joined by other states, negotiated to include article 21 in the convention to permit military co-operation and operations with states that have not signed the treaty.

In our view, article 21 strikes a balance in addressing the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions while allowing states parties to protect their own legitimate national security and defence interests.

The reality is that article 21 is part of the convention, a convention that to date 112 countries have signed and 83 countries have ratified.

From the beginning of the negotiations, Canada supported the need to ensure that countries could continue to collaborate militarily with those that have not signed the treaty. The Canadian delegation and others made this point strongly in every negotiating session since 2007, and we are satisfied that article 21 adequately meets this need. Authorizing members of the Canadian Armed Forces to carry out operations with the armed forces of countries that have not signed the convention will allow Canada to maintain our special co-operative relationship with the United States. Clause 11 of the bill would allow Canada to support the convention and at the same time meet our security needs in co-operation with our American allies.

Canada, as we know, has more interoperations with the American military than any other country in the world. Canada has a clear mandate in negotiations, and we have always been open and transparent in exactly what we wanted to accomplish. Others are free to have their point of view, but the treaty and this legislation represents the view of the Government of Canada.

The Minister of National Defence touched on this briefly a little earlier, but I think it is important to again emphasize that under Bill S-10, the Canadian Armed Forces members would still be prohibited from using cluster munitions during Canadian Armed Forces operations.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces would also be prohibited from using cluster munitions and from training in the use of cluster munitions when they were on an exchange with another country's armed forces. The Canadian Armed Forces would also not be permitted to transport cluster munitions on Canadian vehicles belonging to the Canadian Armed Forces.

As I said at the outset, much of the debate on Bill S-10, and indeed on the convention itself, has concerned the issue of interoperability. Since under the convention this would be a criminal offence, it is necessary that Bill S-10 ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces who participate in operations with the U.S. armed forces not be held criminally responsible for anything that may violate the terms of the treaty.

Imagine if a Canadian commander were under intense fire from the enemy and called in close air support from our American ally, and that American ally chose to drop a cluster munition. Would our commander then be criminally responsible? I think under the legislation, the opposition is suggesting that he or she would be. Should the commander in that situation not call in that close air support and allow Canadian soldiers to die? That is what we are talking about here.

What they are proposing would put Canadian military personnel in a very difficult and potentially very dangerous situation. This is the reality of operating in the real world. We have to be sure to protect our men and women in uniform in these circumstances.

When the treaty was negotiated, it was accepted that not all countries would be able to sign the convention right away. The treaty's negotiators also recognized that multilateral operations would require states that have not yet signed onto the convention to work with those that already have. Here again, it was recognized that in the real world, things do not always work out the way we would like. Therefore, Canada and others insisted that ways be found to allow those countries that have signed on to the convention to work with those that have not.

That is article 21, subsection 3, of the convention. That is in the convention that all countries ratified. Our allies, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, have put provisions into their legislation that would allow article 21 to operate so that their militaries could interoperate with other countries that use cluster munitions. That was negotiated by all of our negotiators, including Mr. Turcotte.

While some of the specific details in Bill S-10 may be different from the terms of the convention, that is simply because of the need to turn some multilateral treaty language into Canadian legal terms. This has to be done to meet our charter and other Canadian legislative standards for clarity in Canadian courts.

As members of the House will know, when senators considered this bill, they proposed a number of amendments that were either already covered in the bill or would have undermined its position.

Let me now review some of the senators' suggestions and examine why the government was not able to accept them.

As an example, some senators suggested making it an offence for a person to knowingly invest in a company that makes cluster munitions. That is already covered by Bill S-10, since investing in a commercial organization that produces cluster munitions would fall under the prohibition against aiding and abetting. Under section 10, as it now stands, aiding and abetting or counselling from Canada would be a criminal offence, even if the activity took place in a country where it was legal.

Concerning the senators' suggested amendment to create reporting requirements, the convention already requires reports annually from countries. Even though Canada has not yet ratified the treaty, the government is already providing the required reports voluntarily. Similarly, senators proposed an amendment concerning the stockpiling of cluster munitions. Here too the bill already addresses the issue of stockpiling cluster munitions, so the proposed amendment was not necessary. Although Bill S-10 does not refer to stockpiling as such, because it is not a term used in Canadian criminal law, the idea in the bill is referred to as “possession”.

Some of the senators' amendments would have added the word “transfer” to the definition in the prohibition provisions. The meaning of the word “transfer” in the convention requires prohibiting the physical movement of cluster munitions from one state to another when it also involves a change of ownership and control. Using this definition would have raised some concerns, because the word “transfer” already appears in many Canadian laws. In Bill S-10, therefore, we used the word “move” instead of the word “transfer”. Moving prohibited cluster munitions from one country to another would be an offence if the intent was to change the control and ownership of the munitions, which would be consistent with criminal law in Canada, therefore making it easier to prosecute in a Canadian court.

Another amendment proposed by senators would have the Canadian Armed Forces tell a country that has not signed the treaty, and with which we are engaged in military co-operation, about our obligations under the convention. However, the House should remember that Bill S-10 is about criminal law, so it would not be a good idea to include such an obligation in this bill. Besides, this obligation falls on the Government of Canada and not on individual members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Can we imagine if it was the obligation of every member of the Canadian military in battlefield situations to point out to their counterparts, whether they be from the American military or the military of another allied nation, such as the ones we participated with in Afghanistan, that perhaps they should think about not using cluster munitions and destroy their stockpiles? In the heat of battle, the Canadian military personnel need to focus on the job at hand.

In another suggestion, senators proposed an amendment that would add the offence of extraterritoriality to the bill. This is not a requirement under the convention, and aside from that extraterritoriality is covered under Canadian law.

As many others have already pointed out, the Convention on Cluster Munitions would prohibit the use, production and transfer of cluster munitions. Even before we introduced this legislation, our government took important steps to fulfill our obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Canada has never produced or used cluster munitions. We have begun to destroy all the cluster munitions that we have, and we are already submitting annual reports as required by the convention, even though we have not yet ratified it.

Bill S-10 would implement the purpose of the convention by prohibiting the use, development, possession and import and export of cluster munitions. As well, it would ban the stockpiling or possession of cluster munitions in Canada, as we said earlier. We can already apply many parts of the treaty, but for other parts to come into force the House needs to pass Bill S-10 quickly.

The convention applies a number of obligations on the Government of Canada. However, we also need to apply these same obligations on individuals as well. To do that, Bill S-10 sets out a series of offences and defines them in order to allow their prosecution in the future. The bill also sets out when exceptions would apply, such as when cluster munitions are being used for research and training or where they are being transferred to be destroyed. Bill S-10 would also prevent Canadians from helping someone else from carrying out any activities prohibited by the treaty.

As we have heard from other speakers during this debate, cluster munitions are a dangerous type of weapon, which disproportionately affects civilians long after the fighting has ended. Children are particularly sad victims of these weapons, since children can often mistake them for brightly coloured toys. They pick them up to play with them, with tragic results. If that is not sad enough, cluster munitions make it impossible to use the land to raise cattle or grow crops, so farmers and ranchers cannot earn a living for a long time after the fighting ends.

Our government is committed to protecting civilians in war-torn parts of the world from the indiscriminate suffering that cluster munitions cause. We have done this through our support for the ban on land mines, and we will continue to do this by our support for a ban on cluster munitions under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. This legislation is an important step toward meeting this commitment.

Canada's ratification of the convention will give a strong signal of Canada's continued commitment to reducing the suffering caused by war. Innocent civilians, including children, need our help and they need it now.

I am proud to support Bill S-10, which would enable us to ratify the convention and begin once and for all to end the scourge of cluster munitions. I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how we can take the parliamentary secretary seriously, that there is any sense of urgency on the government's part to implement this legislation or to get this legislation going.

It was in December 2008 that the government signed the treaty. In April 2012, it was given to the Senate. For some reason, the government decided the Senate should have it for a full seven months. It was December 2012 before it was finally introduced in the House. It was May 29, 2013, when it had the first snippet of debate at second reading, and I believe it was for about 10 minutes at one o'clock in the morning. We were here during one of those late night sessions, and the parliamentary secretary stood up for about 15 minutes and that was it. We have it now under closure because there is great urgency, for some reason, that we must ram this legislation through in its current form.

We have tried to point out the glaring hypocrisy associated with claiming that one is against cluster munitions and then introducing legislation that has a whole section describing the terms and conditions under which Canadians will and may continue to use cluster munitions.

If the government really believes that cluster munitions are morally and ethically reprehensible and they should be abolished and condemned in the strongest possible terms, why is it enabling, with its clause 11, the continued association of our country with this horrific and inhumane type of weapon?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was more than one question there, and I will try to address them in order.

The member first mentioned the introduction of this bill in the Senate. I am glad he raised that because it has been raised tonight on a number of other occasions.

Using that opportunity to introduce bills simultaneously in the House of Commons and in the Senate allows bills to move more quickly through the House. If we had only introduced it in the House of Commons—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Quickly? April 2012?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess he does not want to hear my answer. It probably does not fit with the narrative he would like people to hear.

However, doing that meant we could move all of these bills through twice as fast rather than starting them in one House versus the other. That is the answer to that question.

In respect of his second question, earlier when I asked him a question about article 21 of the convention, he failed to mention paragraph 3 thereof, which reads:

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.

As I mentioned several times in my speech, the purpose of clause 11 is to comply with article 21 of the convention. It is to allow our military personnel to continue to be interoperable with our allies, such as the United States, but also many other countries that may use cluster munitions, as we did in Afghanistan. We cannot put our military personnel at risk of their lives or at risk of criminal prosecution if that other state might use a cluster munition when they are interoperable with them.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for the record that the hon. parliamentary secretary is in no position to criticize the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for asking multiple questions, nor interrupting with heckling when an opposite member attempts to answer. He did both earlier in questions to the official opposition.

Since I am not allowed to speak due to closure, I will never get an opportunity to give a full speech on this very important bill.

To answer his question, I have examined the legislation from Australia and the U.K., and I can give a comparison. It is very clear that Canada's language is the weakest of all of the interoperability sections. He can check Australia's section 72.41 and section 9 of the U.K. legislation. They are not as weak as Canada's legislation, which, particularly under paragraph 11(1)(c), allows the Canadian Forces to have enough exemptions to use, acquire and possess cluster weapons.

To answer a question he has not asked yet, that being which of our allies has the best interoperability clause, the one I would be happy to see in this legislation is New Zealand's. It simply states:

A member of the Armed Forces does not commit an offence against section 10(1) merely by engaging, in the course of his or her duties, in operations, exercises, or other military activities with the armed forces of a State that is not a party to the Convention and that has the capability to engage in conduct prohibited [otherwise by the legislation].

My question to the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: What is wrong with the New Zealand language? Why will he not accept it? It deals with the interoperability questions he has asked about in the theatre of war.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have also read the Australian and the U.K. legislation.

The Australian legislation is very similar to Canada's. It has almost the exact language and includes explicit exceptions in its legislation to allow for interoperability. The United Kingdom legislation also has an interoperability clause, as well as an annex establishing defences to the general prohibitions provided in the bill against the use of cluster munitions.

Both Australia and the United Kingdom are countries that operate with Canada and with the United States. Those approaches are very similar to Canada's. The Canadian legislation was drafted in direct reference to the Australian and U.K. legislation.

Our government is very comfortable that our military personnel will continue to be interoperable with both those countries, with the United States, and not put our military personnel at risk.