Debates of June 11th, 2013

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is because the former prime minister of Australia thinks it is retrograde, because people who have been studying this for years think it is retrograde, because no one supports the government's position, no one except for the government itself. The government is so out of touch.

If the member was listening to my speech, my point was about where this legislation started. It started in the other place. Clause 11 of the bill is so retrograde that people, not just us, are saying do not even bother, stand outside of this, do not implement. That is how bad it is, and the Conservatives cannot even hear that voice. They are not even open to amendments. They think they are so right, and they are so steadfastly stubborn that they cannot hear logic anymore. That is what is wrong with the government. That is why we need to change not only this legislation, but frankly, we need to change the government.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning to discuss the bill in question, I too must protest as vehemently as possible against the process being followed here.

Bill S-10, which we are discussing this evening, was introduced in the House on December 6, 2012. It took the Conservatives six months to call the bill for debate. When they finally did so, debate lasted 10 minutes, at one in the morning on Wednesday, May 29. Now, after 10 minutes of debate, whereas it took the government six months to bestir itself a little and table the bill, we are being told that time allocation is going to be imposed, because discussion has gone on too long. Moreover, the recommendations for amendments made in the other house do not appear at all in the bill before us.

Cluster munitions have almost no military usefulness and mainly affect civilians. Ninety-eight per cent of those injured by cluster munitions are civilians.

In many cases, these weapons have a relative effectiveness. About 30% of the small sub-munitions packed into the weapon fail to explode. They become sub-munitions, often the size of tennis balls, and often very colourful. They remain in the environment and are spread over a very wide area. Children see them. They are attractive. They play with them and, of course, the sub-munitions blow up in their faces and cause damage we can imagine. The sub-munitions in these weapons become, as it were, tiny but very numerous anti-personnel mines.

Because we are talking about anti-personnel mines, let us make a small comparison with what Canada did with respect to anti-personnel mines. Canada was a leader in that area. It won the esteem not only of many countries, but also of many people all over the world, through the work it did on anti-personnel mines.

One day, I met a Portuguese-speaking senior African dignitary. He told me that he had given his daughter the name Ottavia in honour of the Ottawa convention. Ottawa was, at that time, a word that was full of hope. Now, however, we are talking about cluster munitions. Initially, Canada was true leadership from Canada, but nowadays, there is nothing of the sort. In fact, we are regressing and destroying everything. In the negotiation process, Canada quickly became a spoilsport, as it were. Most of the countries involved were opposed to the interoperability provision that Canada had already managed to have included in the convention, but Canada pushed for it and got it. Quite frankly, there is nothing to be proud about in all of this.

We have before us Bill S-10. If we had no reason to be proud during the negotiation process, we will certainly have good cause to be ashamed if this bill is passed. Despite its title, it is not a bill to implement the convention. It is a bill to lay waste to the convention. Bill S-10, in fact, will invalidate the convention.

The bill provides the means to circumvent the interoperability provision by allowing Canada to aid, abet, counsel or conspire to use cluster munitions, under a convention that seeks to abolish the very use of these munitions.

A little earlier, we heard comments to the effect that the NDP would be opposed to these changes because of petty partisan politics or some such reasoning.

Just in case anybody actually believed that, allow me to quote a number of people in order to demonstrate just how broad the consensus is against this bill and to show that this consensus is made up of people from all walks of life.

I would like to quote the leader of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, as well as the chair of the Department of Security and International Affairs at the Canadian Forces College. In my opinion, these two people should know what they are talking about. I would also like to quote a foreign dignitary, the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, and also the hon. Warren Allmand, former solicitor general of Canada.

Let us start with Earl Turcotte, the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated this agreement. When Mr. Turcotte saw the direction in which the negotiations were heading and what was the result was going to be, he resigned. I admire his courage. It shows just how outraged he was to see what the government had in store for us.

He said, “The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention to date.”

Regarding the current government's stance on cluster munitions, the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, remarked that it is “timid, inadequate and regressive”. Fortunately, there will be a change in government in 2015.

I would like to quote Walter Dorn, the chair of the Department of Security and International Affairs at Canadian Forces College. It is a long quote, but I believe it is worth hearing:

As someone who works daily with those who have deployed in combined operations and who might do so myself as a civilian under the Code of Service Discipline, I have to say that the current draft legislation could put us in a compromising position.

Those deployed on behalf of Canada do not want to be forced to violate the treaty or be associated with violations. The terms of the bill would oblige Canadians to accept orders which they might consider illegal. It would then put them in a legal limbo between national and international law. Soldiers are trained to obey “lawful orders”. This would create confusion because the laws are contradictory. A complete prohibition, as obliged by the convention, would be much clearer.

He added:

...clause 11 of the current draft legislation seems to be in legal contravention of the treaty. It gives rise to serious moral dilemmas and weakens the norm against the use of these terrible weapons. It should be removed or amended.

Finally, the Hon. Warren Allmand said:

As presently drafted, Bill S-10 contains provisions that are contrary to the treaty's objects and purposes. It makes no sense for Canada to join a treaty regime whose purpose is an absolute prohibition on the use and transfer of cluster munitions on the one hand and, on the other hand, to promulgate national legislation that creates exceptions allowing Canadian personnel to carry out precisely the types of activities that are proscribed or forbidden by the convention.

Obviously, everyone agrees. All anyone needs to do is read the bill.

As I said at the beginning, this bill is designed not to implement, but rather to destroy the treaty. Agreeing to this bill and passing it as is places the Canadian military in an extremely difficult position, in addition to setting a bad example for other countries. Canada will still be the “bad guy” on the international stage.

After the debacle concerning the effort to combat desertification, Kyoto, the arms trade treaty with no clear outcome, and the new directives on international co-operation, Canada still looks like it does not want to play ball.

This bill has huge flaws. It must be reviewed and we will certainly not support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a very simple question.

Is she aware that as many as 300 or 400 members of the Canadian armed forces serve year-round with U.S. armed forces units, including combat units, and that the United States will not be party to this convention? Does she know that the principle of interoperability is absolutely essential to our alliance with the United States, in North America, and with NATO?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am utterly delighted with the question and would like to put a similar question to my colleague opposite.

Is my colleague aware that the issue of interoperability also arose with regard to anti-personnel mines? Canadian military members were working with the U.S. armed forces at that time as well. In spite of everything, we nevertheless found a way to work with anti-personnel mines that enabled us to comply with the convention while continuing to work with our American partners, in particular, who were not party to the convention.

The same systems could have been put in place for cluster munitions without any problem. These are excuses and pretexts rather than real reasons. If the Conservatives do not want the convention, they should show some backbone and tell us so rather than try to sabotage it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the whole issue with the Americans that we just talked about, I do not think even the parliamentary secretary appreciates that not only is clause 11 about allowing us to be with other forces that are using these munitions, but the loophole is so big that it could mean our forces would be going out and using them.

I do not know if people appreciate how much this would undermine the treaty. It means that not only would we be on standby, but we would be involved in using these munitions. That is what we are talking about. Someone could order one of our soldiers to use them, and that soldier would feel obliged. That is my first point.

Second, in light of this retrograde legislation and in light of the fact that we are not signing on to the arms trade treaty, what does my colleague think this would do in terms of Canada's reputation as a country working for peace and working to ensure that we have solid disarmament proposals to show the world?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I would like to add that several of our allies working within NATO have managed to adopt workable legislation to implement the convention. Why would Canada be the only country incapable of doing that?

As for the second part of the question, I served at the Canadian Foreign Service Institute for 15 years, and I take a certain amount of pride in that fact. We were well regarded in the world; people respected us, and we were able to work positively toward peace and conflict prevention.

Now we find ourselves in a world where we only want to do good when conflict breaks out. We are willing to go and clean up minor situations from time to time, but we no longer make any effort to prevent conflict.

This is really a world in which Canada's image is truly tarnished. This has been evident in my interactions with others, both here and abroad. It is tragic, particularly since it will take years to rebuild that image.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

It is important for Canadians to try to understand where we are on this bill. The bill began in the Senate, where significant concerns were raised by Senator Hubley and Senator Dallaire.

It went to committee, where a number of witnesses appeared and discussed the bill. It would ordinarily be a matter of simple ratification by the House, because we as a House have expressed our views on cluster bombs for a long period of time.

I can recall asking a minister several years ago, former minister David Emerson, about what role Canada was going to be playing in the implementation of the law on cluster munitions. Canada was not that active in putting the bill forward, but finally we agreed that we would join in the ratification and would participate in the ratification.

Essentially this law is supposed to put into effect an international treaty that has been signed by Canada as well as a number of other countries.

My colleagues who spoke earlier discussed how very imperfectly the bill reflects the treaty that we have signed. Cluster bombs are being banned in this treaty. The use of them is being banned in this treaty, which is something that Canada has agreed to do on its own, unilaterally, over a long period of time. That is not in dispute. No one is saying that the government is continuing to promote the use of cluster bombs or is somehow going against the treaty that it has signed.

We will be supporting the legislation going forward to committee, but what we are saying, as clearly as we can, is that the way in which the government has chosen to implement the treaty is contentious.

When I say that, it has to be understood that any number of countries have already had their internal debates and their parliamentary approvals, and if all the other countries, in their own legislation, had somehow adopted exactly the same interpretation of the treaty as the government, then our case would obviously be substantially weakened.

However, one is almost baffled by the approach that the Conservatives have taken. The person who negotiated the treaty, Mr. Turcotte, said that he was profoundly disappointed in the interpretation put on the treaty by the government.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party has already spoken to this issue.

As my colleague previously said, the prime minister of Australia was disappointed by the Government of Canada's approach. In fact, I would even say he was angry. Malcolm Fraser is a former Conservative prime minister of Australia. He is not a radical or a left-winger, and he is not opposed to using military force to safeguard his country's sovereignty; quite the contrary. It would be remarkable if Canada's Conservative government were the only government to adopt such a position and to interpret the treaty in that way. We naturally have questions on that subject.

Why has the government chosen to adopt such a negative interpretation of the treaty in clause 11 of the bill before us? Can it be said, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre has done, that one of the consequences of the legislation proposed by the Conservatives is that Canadian officers could order the use of these bombs and that Canadian soldiers might have to use them?

In my opinion, that stands in stark contradiction with the fact that Canada is opposed to the use of these bombs.

Consequently, we have a serious problem. Although standing in favour of multilateral disarmament, the Conservatives have managed to cause a problem with regard to the use of these bombs, which are so dangerous and have such a cruel impact on the civilian population.

We have all realized in the last few years that wars are no longer armed combats between soldiers lining up in a line, one against the other, but that wars increasingly and overwhelmingly involve the civilian populations of countries around the world.

Whether it is land mines or whether it is cluster bombs, the human experience has been that these are weapons have a horrible effect and a horrible impact on the civilian population. They are hard to target and they are hard to control. It is hard to say exactly who is going to be hit, who is going to be hurt, and who is going to be killed. It is the indiscriminate nature of these bombs that has led the world to say that we are going to stop the manufacture of these bombs and stop their use.

For our part, we are completely in favour of the legislation from the perspective of wanting to implement the treaty, but we insist that changes need to be made in committee in order to respect not only the spirit but the letter of the treaty we are signing. The changes that are required are in clause 11.

My colleagues Senators Hubley and Dallaire, two people of great integrity and great ability who have been watching and debating this legislation in the other place, did their best to convince the Conservative majority in the Senate that changes need to be made, but unfortunately those changes were not made.

Let us look at the number of countries that have explicitly rejected the interpretation being put on this treaty by the Conservative government.

At least 35 states have articulated support for the clear interpretation that the interoperability clause is not an escape clause. That is the clause that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was just talking about.

New Zealand's legislation does not create any exceptions to the convention's prohibitions.

Norway has noted that:

The exemption for military cooperation does not authorise the States Parties to engage in activities prohibited by the Convention.

Ten other NATO members have issued similar interpretations: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Portugal and Slovenia.

It is hard for the government to argue that to be able to participate in NATO operations or in joint operations with other countries, we are somehow going to be able to use the interoperability clause as a pure and simple escape clause, but that is actually what the government has done.

One has to have a close look at this concept of interoperability, which is a principle with respect to how Canadian troops are working and exercising their responsibilities and engaging in combat in other countries. It is important at the same time to ask what the point is of signing a convention and agreeing to a treaty when we are not going to implement that treaty if it affects any of the operations we are undertaking anywhere in the world.

It almost seems like an expression on the part of the government of a kind of organized hypocrisy when out of one side of its mouth it says that it will be eliminating the use of cluster bombs and then says that no, not necessarily, if it means that it has to agree to the rejection of their use while we are actually in combat.

This is a challenge that Canadians need to understand and the government needs to come clean on.

I appreciate the fact that the government has introduced the legislation, that the government is referring it to committee and that the government says that its intent is to implement a treaty, which we are signing as a sovereign country. However, the government cannot do that and at the same time say that, yes, it will implement the treaty, but it will ensure that when it is in actual conditions of combat, it will not have any effect.

This is really a contradictory position that the government has taken. Once again, it has taken the position of Canadian exceptionalism to a degree that makes us almost a laughingstock to the rest of the world. The government effectively is saying that yes, it wants to pretend to be the good guys who are going along with signing and ratifying this treaty, but no, it does not disagree really with those of our partners, the United States and elsewhere, which in fact will not sign this treaty because the United States says that it does not want to use these, but there may be circumstances in which it has no choice but to use them and it will not bind the hands of our troops. Let us remember that the United States also refused to sign the land mines treaty.

It seems to me the government has to come clean. Is it or is it not the intention of the Government of Canada to allow its troops to be actively engaged in using cluster bombs while in combat, yes or no? Is it in fact the case that the Government of Canada intends its commanding officers to authorize the use of these cluster bombs while they are actually in the field of combat, even though Canada has signed a treaty saying they will not be used?

It seems to me there has to be some consistency. The Conservatives have in fact done exactly what other countries have warned us against doing and they have done exactly what other countries have refused to do, which is to use this notion of interoperability as an actual escape from the responsibilities we have to implement the legislation.

We need to go back into committee. We need to call Mr. Turcotte. We need to call the people who have interpreted this legislation. We need to call the people who have been looking hard at it. We need to call people from other countries who have an understanding as to how they have interpreted this. We need to have a real discussion in committee as to why the government would have taken such an approach to this legislation.

Canada should not be escaping its responsibilities by choosing to implement a treaty in this way. It makes a mockery of our commitment. It makes a mockery of our understanding of what it means to actually put into effect and to put into operation a treaty obligation that we signed. It will provide for total confusion with respect to what Canada and Canadians troops have actually agreed to do.

That is why, while we support the bill going to committee, we have great difficulty with the way in which the government has chosen to interpret the treaty in clause 11 of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member opposite, what we have heard here tonight on this issue is what a famous former U.S. secretary of state called “the stern daughter of the voice of God”, Dean Acheson's term for a certain kind of Canadian self-righteousness that simply refuses to take reality as it is, especially in the political, military or strategic field.

My question for the member for Toronto Centre is very simple. He regrets that there is not symmetry between this legislation and our legislation governing the land mines convention. He says that it is a slippery slope in all kinds of directions.

Will the member not acknowledge for the House that the essential difference here, underpinning clause 11, is the exception that this legislation provides for Canadian Forces that serve in operational units, combat units, which will never be using cluster munitions directly under this legislation, but that serve alongside their American colleagues in combat?

American units, as long as their country has not signed this convention, are still using that weapon. We disapprove and we will not do it in our armed forces.

However, will the member for Toronto Centre admit that there is a difference between land mines, which U.S. armed forces do not use, and cluster munitions, which are still used and were used as recently as in the last decade in Afghanistan, in a combat mission that included Canadian troops, some of them embedded in U.S. units?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to borrow a phrase, and the member may be somewhat dumbfounded when I say this, but I actually knew Dean Acheson and he was a friend of mine. The hon. member is no Dean Acheson, I can say that right now.

I do not mind being called whatever by the hon. member, but to his question I would simply put another question. How is it possible that 20 other NATO countries have managed to sign the convention, have signed the treaty and have not adopted the kind of escape clause to which Canada is now committing itself?

What the Government of Canada is now saying is that Canada has no independent foreign policy, we have no independent defence policy and we have no capacity to make our own moral judgments with respect to what weapons we will use and what weapons we will not use. It is the old Conservative position: when the imperial power says “Aye”, they say “Ready, aye, ready”.

From our perspective, we want Canada to be able to say “We believe in a treaty, we take a treaty seriously and we will observe the letter and the spirit of that treaty when we pass our legislation right here in Canada”.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.

In Canada's view, the use of cluster bombs is an utterly inconceivable act. Why have we not heard the Government of Canada or the Minister of Foreign Affairs take a strong position on the use of cluster munitions in the current conflict in Syria?

Today the parliamentary secretary tells us that Canada has always been a strong proponent of that principle. This is the same old story. Why has the Conservative government not adopted that approach to the conflict in Syria? I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's ability to speak directly about the humanitarian impact of the use of these bombs is entirely compromised by the position the Government of Canada has taken.

The Conservative Party's position is such that we find ourselves in a situation in which we claim to be opposed to the use of these bombs, which are being used in Syria, but we say that there will be exceptions and they will continue to be used.

The Canadian public would be surprised to know the current position of the Government of Canada. As the parliamentary secretary said, the principle of interoperability clearly means that Canada is no longer independent with regard to its military decisions or the conditions in which it does its job and fights. Furthermore, if a conflict arises, Canada must agree to fight alongside the Americans. Ultimately, we will have no choice as to how we do our job.

That constitutes an infringement of Canada's sovereignty, which I find utterly unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the two last answers of the member for Toronto Centre reminded me much more of Henri Bourassa than of Dean Acheson. Raging against an imperial power, it really sounded like rhetoric from times past. However, let us come back to reality. Let us come back to the present.

The member mentions 20 states. It is true that most of the members of NATO that have taken a different approach to this convention. Will the member not admit, though, that these states were not involved in combat alongside American troops in Afghanistan as recently at five, six or seven years ago? By not acknowledging the reality that Canadian troops faced, of being integrated into command structures, not of an imperial power, but of an alliance of democracies, yes, including the United States, the member for Toronto Centre, who says he is a member of the Liberal Party, which sent us to Afghanistan to be involved in combat, is contradicting the legacy and principles of his party and certainly the honour the Canadian Armed Forces that did everything in their power to fulfill the mission that his party placed on their shoulders in 2005 when they were sent into combat in Kandahar.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that I probably was as strong an advocate with respect to Canadian engagement in Afghanistan as any member in the House, including members of the Conservative Party. I leave that as a clear statement.

I think what the hon. member is not coming clean on is we know that within the government and within the public service of Canada there was a substantial internal debate about how this legislation should be brought forward and what should be in that legislation. We know the people who were negotiating this treaty never had any concept that this level of exceptionalism would be introduced into the legislation and that this kind of escape clause would be introduced into the legislation.

What we continue to object to is that the government has taken an interpretation of this treaty and made a mockery of it in the way in which it has been interpreted and the way in which it has been put forward. That is something that everyone in the House needs to realize. This is not something that came forward without any discussion or debate within the Government of Canada. There was a substantial debate.

I am sorry that when we look at the legislation, the broadest possible exceptions have been built into the law that has been brought forward by the Conservative Party.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with great attention. It reminded me of some conversations that I had in a previous career, where I was involved with some American vets who were trying to get support for a land mine ban. I was playing some shows in the United States, in my former life, and they told me “thank goodness for Canada” and “thank goodness for the independent voice right next to the United States”, which could actually send clear message to the world that there were people in North America who saw things differently.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from Toronto Centre might want to comment on the drift that we have seen consistently from the government vis-à-vis our place in the world.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is taking the concept of interoperability and an interpretation of what that means and then basically saying that the implication of the principle of interoperability is that we essentially have to do whatever the United States or other countries with which we are serving want us to do.

With great respect, Canada fought long and hard for greater independence in the conduct of our troops in two world wars. In two world wars, we had substantial arguments that had to be made to ensure that Canadian troops, the Canadian approach and the Canadian way of engaging were in fact given a degree of recognition and independence. The Conservative Party is now saying that interoperability means that we simply have to do whatever our allies want and tell us to do, whether it is the Americans, the Brits or someone else, and I am saying that if we sign a treaty like this, that is in fact not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope we do get a chance to hear from the member for Toronto Centre again tonight.

Continuing the last exchange, it is astonishing to hear members of the Liberal Party, who complained about national caveats during our forces' time in combat in Afghanistan and in Kandahar, who pushed for NATO command of that mission starting in 2003 and then Canadian command of the first NATO combat mission in southern Afghanistan in 2005-06. That same Liberal Party, now in opposition, has become the stern daughter of the voice of God on the whole question of whether interoperability can actually be made a practical reality.

The Liberals did not want to apply these principles of pulling Canadian troops out of U.S. units, of not having Canadian pilots who may be based with U.S. squadrons providing air support to U.S. units that might need it because of the danger of cluster munitions. They did not raise any of those concerns, even while this convention was under negotiation at that time. In the heat of combat, most of them wanted the best for our troops and wanted our troops to do well. They knew very well, very quickly, that they had sent the Canadian Forces into Afghanistan under-equipped, without the right uniforms, the right vehicles, the right mobility, tactical strategic lift, that this country with its expeditionary tradition should always have. They were embarrassed for it and they were called on it, and they will wear their record of a decade of darkness, the lowest ebb of support for the Canadian Forces, for the rest of their history.

However, on this issue of cluster munitions and exceptions, the hypocrisy we have seen tonight is astonishing. The members of that party that wanted us to lead the first NATO combat mission in one of the most difficult theatres imaginable now wants to fetter those same forces with an inability to work comprehensively with their U.S. colleagues. It wants to fetter the forces from being good allies, to be one of the few countries that do not have those caveats and that do not shy away from combat when it is necessary and authorized and the right thing to do. The comments from the member for Toronto Centre probably do more than anything I am about to say to advance our case for this legislation. It is the right legislation to govern our involvement in the Convention on Cluster Munitions at this stage in our history, while the United States is still on a different path.

Let me say a few things about this important legislation from the perspectives of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Let us remind ourselves what those Canadian Forces are still doing at home and abroad that brings them into contact with Canadians on all three coasts and across this great country. They are in contact with allies, with many of the countries the member for Toronto Centre mentioned, many of which sent contingents to Afghanistan but did not have the size, scale or capability to do the heavy lifting that countries like Canada did.

Our troops have responded in the last year to natural disasters, such as floods in Quebec and the Prairies, forest fires in British Columbia, and a hurricane in Atlantic Canada. They support law enforcement agencies when called upon. They patrol our Arctic. They conduct search and rescue missions. We discuss those missions almost every week in this House of Commons. They do it on some of the most inhospitable terrain and climate on earth.

Abroad, our men and women in uniform have been heavily committed to the mission in Afghanistan, first protecting Kabul, the capital, while our allies were off on another mission in Iraq. Then they were in combat in Kandahar, bringing NATO forces into a pitch tempo of operations that they had never seen before in the history of the alliance. Now they are training the Afghan National Security Forces.

The forces have protected civilians in Libya. They are engaged in counter-narcotics missions in the Caribbean basin and the eastern Pacific. They are helping to foster maritime security in the Arabian Sea. Let us recall HMCS Toronto and its seizures of heroin, opium and hashish on historic scales, which the allied navies have never before achieved.

We are also participating in a number of international missions, from Cyprus to Golan to South Sudan. More and more the forces find themselves working in complex, sensitive, legally challenging theatres of operation. There is no rule of law in many of these states and societies when these missions are undertaken. That is why these Canadian Forces, and indeed the new authorities in many of these countries, are looking to international law, including conventions, agreements and other treaties to guide their actions.

One of them is the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which Canada signed in good faith four and a half years ago. The bill before us would allow Canada to ratify that treaty. However, even though the convention has not yet entered into force in Canada, and this is a key point, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have already taken clear steps to abide by its spirit.

First and foremost, it is important to recognize that the forces have never used these weapons in any of their operations. If anything that we say tonight deserves repetition, it is surely that fact. The Canadian Forces, with their record of success in world wars, peacekeeping, Korea and Afghanistan, have never had recourse to cluster munitions. Even three years before Canada signed the convention, the forces had begun to phase cluster munitions out of their operational weapon stocks where they had remained unused. It was not long after that the forces began ridding themselves of these weapons entirely, a process which is nearly complete now that Public Works and Government Services Canada has posted the last contract for the destruction of our remaining stock of cluster munitions.

While this process of stock destruction was under way, the Chief of the Defence Staff underscored the forces' position on these weapons, by prohibiting their use in any of our military operations. The fact that all this took place before Canada even signed the convention shows our commitment, and the commitment of the Canadian Forces, to its aims.

It is because we recognize that the kind of international co-operation that leads to agreements like the convention results in a safer world and, by extension, greater security for Canada.

The Canadian Forces have always been strong supporters of the arms control and disarmament regime. It helps to keep the world an orderly and more peaceful place, where fewer military operations are required.

However, this kind of international co-operation naturally requires more than just signing treaties, and it goes further than co-operation initiatives in the area of arms control.

For a number of decades, Canada has been a strong defender of multilateral security efforts. The Canada First defence strategy highlights the importance of this type of co-operation in the present-day context.

Partnership and co-operation with all of our allies is also a priority for NATO, and with countries beyond NATO.

Clearly, international co-operation in the defence field will remain one of the cornerstones of Canada’s security for a long time to come.

Let me contrast this vision of security with our many partners. There is the United States here in North America, but there are dozens in NATO and dozens outside of NATO that have active security co-operation with Canada. The member for Toronto Centre said this government was responding to some kind of imperial pressure. I look around to Europe, south of the border, Asia, and I fail to see, and I think all of us on this side of the House fail to see, an imperial power in this day and age to which Canada would subordinate itself in any way, shape or form.

It is for that reason that we will continue to remind the House and Canadians that we are speaking about today's reality, not about the anxieties of the 1920s or the 1950s and not about something of historical interest. We are speaking about Canada's security reality today, our partnerships in the world, our co-operation in the world, and our arms control and disarmament obligations in the world.

As I have already mentioned, international co-operation in the field of security involves more than treaties. It encompasses areas such as collaborative research, development, training, information sharing and joint operations.

These endeavours help the Canadian Forces safeguard Canada’s security because, in today’s complex world, countries cannot face down most threats by themselves.

In today’s volatile environment, Canada has a close ally. For decades, the Canadian and American armed forces have worked side by side to safeguard the security of our two countries and foster global stability. This is why the Canada First defence strategy specifies that the Canadian Armed Forces have a duty to strengthen this long-standing co-operation by remaining a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America.

I might as well ask if the member for Toronto Centre knows the history of his own party?

It was the Liberal Party of Canada that brought us into the North American aerospace defence agreement. We are the smaller partner, but it is for the larger objective of defending North America, and we did that of our own free will. This government supports that alliance as much as any Liberal government did. However, it is not a question of ceding sovereignty, but a question of defending peace and one's national interest more effectively with allies. We have always done it.

The strategy also calls on the forces to co-operate with our partners and allies, including the United States, in order to promote international security.

Our long-standing co-operation with our American friends has proven successful over the years. It has allowed us to have access to important information, dialogue with key decision-makers and enhance our own military capability, and at the same time it has enabled our defence industries to work together more effectively.

Of course, it is to export to the United States and beyond as well.

This is a relationship worth preserving. Doing so was a priority for Canada during the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. That is why Canada championed the clause within the convention dealing with the military co-operation of signatory states with countries that are not party to the agreement, countries like the United States.

This clause found in article 21 of the convention and reflected in Bill S-10 strikes a fair balance between humanitarian principles, on the one hand, to which we are absolutely committed, and Canada's security imperatives on the other. It protects Canada's ability to co-operate in a meaningful way with its partners that have not yet signed the agreement, and it complies entirely with Canada's humanitarian obligations under the convention. That is perhaps something that needs reinforcing. Despite all the rhetoric from across the way, we are complying entirely with the requirements of the convention.

The legislation before us today reflects Canada's interpretation of this clause, and as such would allow us to remain fully interoperable with the U.S. military. It would preserve the valuable liaison and exchange positions that the Canadian Armed Forces share with our most important ally. It essentially means that in combat the Canadian Forces would not be obliged to leave U.S. units just because there was a suspicion that cluster munitions might be used.

Of course, members of the Canadian Forces would not use them and would not be directly involved. Of course, our units would never use them. That would violate our obligations under the convention. However, should we leave our U.S. colleagues hanging in Afghanistan, or some other combat mission, just because of the possibility of a legal stricture not having been met?

The fact is, interoperability between our two nations remains essential to Canada's defence and security. It is more important now, in 2013, than ever before. Every dime counts. Every solider counts. Every capability needs to be leveraged, here, within NATO, and in every operation around the world.

Article 21 of the convention reflected in Bill S-10 would also give our men and women in uniform the legal protection they need to continue to co-operate with other non-signatory states, without fear of being disciplined or put on trial. This includes when they are participating in combined military operations, multinational exercises, training opportunities and military co-operation away from the battlefield. The fact is that this kind of co-operation is integral to the work of our military.

That being said, this will not take away from our commitment to fulfill all of our obligations under the convention. The Canadian Armed Forces will at all times, and during all operations, continue to remain bound to these obligations to prohibit the authorization of or participation in any indiscriminate attack, including one using cluster munitions, regardless of whether they are acting independently or with foreign partners.

To put it simply, no Canadian Armed Forces member would ever directly use a cluster munition or specifically ask that one be used in circumstances where the choice of munition used is within the exclusive control of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, as they move forward with implementation, the Chief of the Defence Staff would issue additional directives to ensure this is fully enforced in practice.

These military directives would specifically prohibit Canadian military members on exchange with allied armed forces from using cluster munitions or from giving or receiving training in their use. They will also prohibit the transportation of cluster munitions by the Canadian Armed Forces or by third parties under its control.

Our question to the opposition is this: How are these safeguards somehow insufficient? How does the opposition think that with its self-righteousness tonight it could wish away the reality of a different policy in the United States, a country that happens to be our most important ally? These restrictions, which would be implemented as soon as Canada ratifies the agreement, would actually exceed the convention's requirements.

To conclude, wherever they operate, the Canadian Armed Forces abide by their national legal and humanitarian obligations. Their obligations under the convention are part and parcel of that cross-cutting commitment. As I said at the outset, National Defence has already prohibited the use of cluster munitions in our own operations. We have removed them from active service. We have taken all the necessary steps to destroy our remaining stockpile.

Going forward, Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to the ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and to its ultimate universalization. What does that mean? It means that we want all countries to become states party to this convention, including the United States. We will engage in advocacy. We will engage in outreach. We will engage in diplomacy to that goal. We recognize that in doing so, we reinforce our broader efforts to foster domestic and international security. We also realize that this commitment to our collective security can only be undertaken in close co-operation with partners and allies, some of which have not yet signed the convention.

With that in mind, until such time as the goal of universalization is realized, the legislation before us today strikes the necessary balance to ensure that we remain true to our obligations under the convention, while enabling us to remain a strong and reliable partner in the quest for peace and security both at home and abroad. As such, I call upon my hon. colleagues to support this important legislation so that we can take the next steps in the critical phase of implementation.

Let me close with two personal points. We are living in a dangerous world. I personally have experience with cluster munitions from that most recent theatre of combat for the Canadian Forces, Afghanistan.

The exception being provided for in this legislation is not an abstraction. It is not something we should be arguing about legalistically on blackboards. It is something that is really needed.

When we were walking in the hills and valleys of Afghanistan, more than once during my time in that country, there were moments when one would take a step over some boulders, look across a divide in what seemed to be a remote place, but a place where sheep, people, shepherds and travellers would nevertheless pass, and there they would be, the cluster munitions that had been left, in some cases by the Soviet Union, in some cases by the United States.

I was never a direct witness to the atrocious human tragedy these explosive remnants of war left on Afghan families and on Afghan villages. Fortunately, those travelling with me always managed to see them and stepped away to miss the little tennis-ball-sized balls of destructive power.

However, they were used, not just by countries we would have once considered our enemies, such as the Soviet Union, not only by China, with its growing military power, but by the United States. We may regret that use. That use nevertheless happened. I guarantee that it happened in units where Canadians were either actively embedded, had been embedded before, or afterwards would be embedded.

It would be a shame, in fact outrageous, given the dependence we have had on the United States for partnership in the military field and that NATO has had on the United States in the military field in Afghanistan and elsewhere, for us to be refusing that kind of fellowship, that kind of professional development and that kind of involvement—because U.S. soldiers are also embedded in our units—simply because one particular weapon may have been used on a few occasions in Afghanistan.

Believe me, I do not have cases, and we have studied them a lot, in the United Nations mission elsewhere in Afghanistan, in which cluster munitions were used mistakenly against civilian targets. I hope that they were not. The munitions we found in the mountains had been left there by pilots discharging their loads as they headed back to the aircraft carrier to their base thinking that they had been destroyed, thinking that no one would come to harm.

There is a legacy there of explosive remnants of war that needs our attention. It has received attention. Canada has been one of the foremost countries funding demining programs, funding the destruction of unneeded ammunition in huge quantities in Afghanistan to try to make this wartorn country safer. However, we should not encumber ourselves with an absolutely ridiculous obligation to cut off our co-operation with the United States, our ability to embed with U.S. units, simply because the United States, on this issue, happens to be in a different place, and we would argue behind us in terms of adherence to the convention. It is according to its own decision-making, on the basis of its own sovereignty and given its own military role in the world.

We on this side hope for the passage of this legislation. We hope for understanding. We know that Canadians want that partnership with the United States to continue. We hope the opposition will understand, especially the Liberal Party, that by continuing the kind of rhetoric members have displayed tonight they are really going against a decision they took--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. That brings to an end the time allocated for the first presentation.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary. He used some pretty loaded language. He said that the opposition was hypocritical. Then he talked about self-righteousness. Listening to the debate, I could only surmise that the self-righteousness is actually coming from him.

I know that he believes that he knows a lot, but the fact is that we all look at legislation, and we have basic questions we want to address. To characterize this as self-righteous or hypocritical is very unparliamentary, because there are basic questions that need to be asked.

One of them is why it took so long for this legislation to come forward. The convention was signed in 2008. It took four years for it to come forward, and all of a sudden, it is being jammed through, rushed through, at the last minute, which, of course, is a pattern with the Conservative government. It is very disturbing.

I guess the most basic question is how the government can stand up with any credibility and pass this legislation and call it a ratification of the convention, when in actual fact, examination of this bill would suggest that it is undermining the convention. If we heed the words of the former negotiator, Mr. Turcotte, that is what he said, in effect.

Leave aside the self-righteousness. Why not just address some of the questions that are legitimately coming forward about this bill?

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

Let me explain.

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

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

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

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

—it is prohibited for any person to

(a) use a cluster munition...

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

(c) move a cluster munition...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 6 does not prohibit a person...from

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

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

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

These are all the exceptions.

Clause 11 goes on to state:

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

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

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

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

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

Now I am going to say it all the time.