Debates of June 11th, 2013

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

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

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

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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the former Australian prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, stated, “It is a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.” Again, these are very strong and quite astounding words to hear from an ally, a former prime minister of Australia, about this Canadian legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

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

First Nations Elections Act

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this night with the member for Peace River.

I am very happy to have the privilege of speaking in favour of Bill S-6 tonight. As with most of our legislation, some of the main criticisms of this bill have to do with myriad problems this bill neither solves nor addresses. The irony, of course, is that those bills that avoid this criticism are criticized for addressing too much and receive the despised label of omnibus bill. I will save the opposition a bit of time and point out what the bill would not do.

This bill would not ensure good government in the first nations that adopt it. It would not guarantee that tribal councils and chiefs elected under this system will be wise. It would not, on its own, solve poverty or racism or ensure that every person under the act would receive a good education. It would not guarantee the independence and prosperity of those first nations that adopt it. No single bill can do all of these things on its own.

This bill would, however, provide a necessary framework to allow for good government, the selection of wise leaders, the enactment of just laws and the increase in independence and prosperity for those first nations whose electoral systems are still governed by the Indian Act.

Today there are 617 first nations in Canada. Thirty-six are self-governing and hold elections according to their own self-government agreements. There are 343 first nations that select their leaders under their own community-based systems, most of which have a specific election code developed within and by the first nation itself. Unfortunately, the 238 first nations that still hold elections under the Indian Act have been held back from achieving their full potential because of the limitations of the Indian Act's election system.

This system was created at a time when the federal government had no intention of allowing first nations to have any real sense of self-governance and therefore did not need to provide conditions that ensured fairness, stability or legitimacy. Some of the weaknesses in this old election system have led to leadership with low credibility and high instability and such problems as having only two-year terms of office, a loose nomination system, a mail-in ballot system that is open to abuse and no defined offences or penalties relating to election fraud.

Virtually no first nations are satisfied with the current system, but this bill gives first nations three options to choose from.

The communities that hold their elections under the Indian Act have the following choices.

The first option is self-government, the ideal scenario, but that goes far beyond simply determining their own election system. The second choice is to develop a community election code. Unfortunately, due to varying capacity, not all first nations are in a position to take advantage of either of the first two options. That leaves them with the third option, which is to simply carry on operating under the Indian Act system, complete with its long list of problems. The third option is not really an option at all, and many first nations are frustrated.

That is why we need this bill, which gives these communities a third viable option if they cannot choose one of the first two options.

The first nations elections act would allow first nations currently operating under the Indian Act to hold elections under a legislated system that would be strong, modern and comparable to municipal, federal and provincial government election systems.

First nations have been calling for this solution for many years. They even made recommendations advocating such legislation. Those recommendations form the foundation of this bill.

Bill S-6 would provide a reliable, consistent, modern approach to elections in first nation communities that would increase the transparency, legitimacy and stability of their governments, which is a necessary precondition of independence and prosperity.

The first important aspect of this legislation is that first nations could opt in. They could choose to use the system.

It is not mandatory.

For those first nations that did opt in, the band council would now have four-year mandates instead of two. This would go a long way toward improving political stability in their communities and would foster a better climate for economic development and long-term investment.

The bill would also tighten up the nomination process. Right now, many tribal elections have literally hundreds of people running for a 12-member council, making the election results, in many cases, statistically arbitrary. This comes from the fact that one person can sign dozens of nominations. He or she does not have to be choosy when nominating candidates.

Furthermore, a single person can run for chief, tribal council and any other position available at the same time. This legislation would restrict the number of candidates any one person could nominate and would allow a given candidate to run in only one position in any given election.

Bill S-6 would also remove the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs from the elections appeals process. Just as in provincial and federal elections, the power to set aside elections and to appeal those decisions would rest with the courts, where it belongs. This is a judicial matter and should not be in the hands of a legislator or the executive branch.

Finally, believe it or not, under the current system, things such as electoral fraud, ballot-box stuffing, buying and selling of mail-in ballots, bribes, et cetera, are not expressly forbidden. The bill would finally prohibit specific offences and would attach definite penalties for corrupt activities that interfered with the electoral process.

Anyone who engages in those kinds of activities will no longer be able to get away with it. They will be forced to face the consequences of their actions.

The first nations elections act would enable first nations communities, if they chose, to put in place a more reliable, consistent and legitimate system of elections. This would make it possible for members of these first nations communities to add transparent, accountable and effective chiefs and councillors as part of a more stable, respectable and reliable government. This would lead to confidence in government and in the community itself. It would inspire community members and outside investors to invest in these communities and to even bring their businesses and their business operations to these communities, which would bring about real, measurable benefits to first nations people, such as jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue. That, in turn, would help pay for infrastructure, which would increase jobs, high-paying jobs, overall prosperity and higher tax revenue, which in turn would help pay for infrastructure. The cycle would go on. It would also pay for education, the arts and our cherished social programs.

The key to realizing these benefits is political stability and predictability, but most important, political legitimacy. Bill S-6, by providing the necessary framework, would make it possible.

In addition to our federal and provincial electoral systems, most of us in the House live in communities in which the political conditions for economic prosperity are taken for granted. So imbedded are these characteristics in our local governments and the electoral systems of those jurisdictions that we do not even notice them. We do not appreciate the extent to which they are transparent, accountable and legitimate and therefore make us ready to seize economic opportunities.

Unfortunately, not all first nation communities enjoy similar political conditions and therefore cannot seize their economic opportunities and seize control of their own lives.

It is time that changes. It is time for first nation elections to be reformed, and it is time to provide the legislative framework that would allow their governments to truly foster the conditions necessary to chase away corruption and attract prosperity.

I urge all of my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill S-6 and in favour of an open, transparent, and accountable government for all Canadians.

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

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

One of the key recommendations from the AMC and the AFN was to establish an independent, impartial appeal mechanism. I wonder why the Conservatives ignored those recommendations.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will commit to working with first nations to establish an independent first nations election tribunal.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, under the Indian Act, any appeals on elections go directly to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. This bill would change that so that appeals would go to the courts

I do not know what the member thinks, but I consider the court system in Canada an independent process of appeal.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy. I think that is something everyone in this House can stand up and believe in. What the government is doing is trying to modernize. With the system in place right now, there is the possibility of fraud. It is ancient. It is outdated.

The first nations communities deserves democracy. They deserve representation. They deserve to be brought into the modern era. It seems that the opposition wants to delay this type of legislation.

I was wondering if the member could give his opinion as to why it is so important that we finally bring this piece of legislation forward for equality and democracy for first nations.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, because that is at the base of a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a guarantee. As much as we would like to provide guarantees for everyone to have a Mercedes and a three-storey house, we cannot always do that. Rights are the pre-condition to acquiring whatever people want guaranteed.

As with the bill on matrimonial housing rights, a lot of the concerns were that the women involved did not have the money necessary to buy the house or go to court or whatever. That was a shortcoming of the bill. However, it provided the necessary framework so that they could start with those things.

We have to start by giving first nations the right to determine a legitimate self-government. Those are the pre-conditions for accomplishing the other things, the things some of our opponents find lacking in this bill. That is because that is not what this bill is about. The bill would set the framework and allow first nations to start solving those problems, as is necessary for anyone who wants to self-govern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Lethbridge, and I welcome him back to the House. People who are watching may be happy to know that he is recovering well from a skiing accident. Just apropos of my friend's comment that everybody here can stand up, at least the hon. member for Lethbridge will be able to soon.

My concern, as with many pieces of legislation in this House, is that many of them come from the other place. They are taken apart, bit by bit, and chip away at what should be a transformation exercise relating to a new relationship and a change from the antiquated Indian Act, which has a lot of baggage. I will not get into all of it. I will not have time in this short question.

My concern, and I wonder if the hon. member from Lethbridge would agree with me, is that we would be far better off to have full consultation, nation to nation, Canada to all first nations, in a process that ensures that first nations are full partners in a holistic, comprehensive approach rather than this piecemeal, and I hate to say it, disrespectful approach, to changing legislation that directly affects the lives of first nations peoples.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would definitely like a holistic approach where every first nation in Canada would come together with Canada and with each other to find one big, holistic solution. Maybe someday that will come. It might be at the second coming. However, in the meantime, we have to get something done to allow each first nation to determine its own path while we are waiting for this great day.