Debates of June 11th, 2013

Pope John Paul II Day Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. There was something he emphasized that I thought was very important, which was that this is not intended to be a bill to celebrate any particular religion or single out any particular pope. A lot of the description of what Karol Wojtyla did over the years before he passed away went way back into his period in Poland.

I am wondering whether the hon. member ever gave any consideration to simply calling this Karol Wojtyla day, to recognize that it was not specifically about a religious figure and to recognize everything this figure did well before he became pope.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand why we should be afraid to designate a day for a man who, we cannot deny, was a leader of the Catholic church.

As I mentioned in my speech, he was a big part of the change in the world that we enjoy today. We cannot change history. We cannot change the fact that he was a leader of the Catholic church, but, as I mentioned in my speech, he went well beyond it.

I had the honour to experience a good part of it myself when I entered into the Solidarity movement. I would like to mention one thing that I did not mention in my speech. The Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and other countries saw him as a danger. That is why on Wednesday, May 13, 1981, at a general audience in St. Peter's Square, there were gunshots, and the pope was shot so seriously that he almost lost his life.

It was not a coincidence. Let us all remember this, and let us remember that the world we enjoy today is much different from the world we had 30 years ago.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville mentioned he himself had spent some time in the Solidarity movement, and it was quite courageous of Pope John Paul II to embrace the notion of non-accommodation.

I am wondering if the hon. member could describe from his own experience the inspiration that Pope John Paul II meant to people like the hon. member and others in that Solidarity movement that eventually brought the end to Communism.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the inspiration came right at the first visit of the Pope. When he told people not to be afraid, I do not think it was fully understood at that time. It came with time. It came as a wave that pushed people for a change.

Why did he say not to be afraid? It was because fear was the tool used by Communism to keep people under control.

He helped people to lose that fear, and that is what led to huge changes. That was what led to the chain of events that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

New countries, democratic countries, appeared on the map of the world. We have a much different world. We no longer have a Cold War. It is a world that we did not imagine we would have 30 years ago.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some members have raised concerns about honouring a man because he was also a spiritual religious leader.

However, since I have been in this place, I recall a New Democratic Party motion that received unanimous consent, recognizing the Five Ks of the Khalsa of Sikhism. I recall a motion from a Liberal member of Parliament, which received unanimous consent, recognizing Islamic History Month. I recall a motion that I had a measure in proposing that received unanimous consent, asking the government to grant honorary citizenship to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who of course is an important Buddhist religious leader. A similar motion received unanimous consent to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to His Highness the Aga Khan, an important Muslim religious leader.

John Paul II, of course, received the Congressional Medal of Honour from the United States, a country in which the separation of church and state is an essential principle.

Would my friend from Mississauga East—Cooksville not agree with me that these ought not to be concerns, that we have indeed recognized spiritual traditions and leaders in this place before and that therefore it ought not to be an objection in this instance?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we should not be afraid to name a day after a church leader, because it does not recognize him as a pope but for his achievements for the world, for peace in the world and for people coming together.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill C-266, which would establish Pope John Paul II Day.

I am well aware that this is a sensitive topic and opinion is divided when it comes to recognizing the good actions of a religious man of such importance in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it must be acknowledged that through his social actions, Pope John Paul II touched the hearts of many people of all religious beliefs. We must not forget that he was behind the first international interfaith meeting in Assisi in 1986. On that occasion, he brought together over 190 religious leaders.

John Paul II has been recognized as an ambassador for world peace. He did not hesitate to meet with numerous leaders of various countries, often political opposites, with the aim of promoting dialogue among nations. I cannot fail to mention the fact that John Paul II was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize because of the important work he did to end Communist oppression in eastern Europe.

I would like the House to consider for a moment the riding I represent, Montcalm. A number of Catholic community organizations are putting all their efforts into building an increasingly caring and vital community. I am thinking of Clarence Thériault, grand knight of the Knights of Columbus in Sainte-Julienne, who talks openly about his Catholic religion and is proud of his work with the Fabrique de Sainte-Julienne.

The religious communities that have been here for generations have a very proud history in this country. I need only think of the sisters of Horeb Saint-Jacques, like Sr. Carmelle and Sr. Jeannine, and the fine work done by Diane Lafontaine, a woman committed to justice and service, and all of the others who devote their time and energy to working for no material gain.

I would also like to mention a friend of the family, Paul Léveillé, the priest in charge of the parishes of Sainte-Marie-Salomé, Saint-Jacques, Saint-Liguori, Saint-Alexis and L'Épiphanie. Paul has been a friend for many years. In fact, he will celebrate the 40th anniversary of his life as a priest this year. If you are watching, Paul, congratulations. I have to say that Paul is a mainstay, not just for practising individuals, but also for young people.

My husband and I occasionally attend Sunday services and have the opportunity to meet older people who live in the riding of Montcalm. Even today, those people still have an enormous amount of affection for the man they describe as a uniting force, a very generous man who was close to the people. When I hear about Pope John Paul II, I inevitably think of the good people whom I have met in my community and in my life and who know this historic figure and have great respect for his good and altruistic works.

When we talk to people of the previous generation, they tell us that Pope John Paul II was their Pope, the one who was extremely involved in public life and who left an indelible mark on every major event in the late 20th century.

The role he played in putting an end to the racist government of South Africa and in bringing down the iron curtain in eastern Europe is well known. In addition, Pope John Paul II, who was born in Poland, was an important figure in the fall of Communism in his home country. He is loved and highly respected by the Polish and Catholic communities.

The role he played in ending the military regimes in Latin America and his opposition to the war in Iraq gave him political importance. His interest in extending a hand to groups that the church had harmed in the past also gave him a significant amount of social importance.

Just before he died, there was great pain throughout the Catholic community and an equal reaction among non-Catholics. He was, at the time, an almost permanent fixture in world affairs and in Catholics' minds.

He was a good man, it must be said, but a complex one. He was an important player on the world stage. He was important to the people of Montcalm and to those of Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Pope John Paul II is an important figure in the history of the 20th century.

His presence, like that of many historical figures, could draw praise as well as criticism. I would prefer my remarks to be positive and therefore I choose to focus on the praise. Although probably better known for his role in connection with the Solidarity union in Poland and for the fall of the iron curtain in eastern Europe, he was also an important player in the fall of the military dictatorships in Chile and Paraguay and the racist government of South Africa.

Sometimes it is difficult to understand why it is important to strive for a better future and fight for the change that has to happen before that future can be achieved. Pope John Paul II truly understood that an inclusive democracy was the key to a better future. What is more, unlike the current government, he immediately opposed the war in Iraq. He said: “War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”

This is the same person who refused to fire his rifle during his mandatory military service in Poland. Furthermore, unlike our current government, he believed in basic science, evolution and climate change.

In the message he gave on World Peace Day, he said:

The ecological crisis reveals the urgent moral need for a new solidarity, especially in relations between the developing nations and those that are highly industrialized.

He also added, “I wish to repeat that the ecological crisis is a moral issue.”

Pope John Paul II also had a special relationship with Canada. He visited our country on several occasions, including in 2002, when over 500,000 young people gathered in a Toronto park for World Youth Day, which is commonly known as WYD. Pope John Paul II created WYD to encourage young people to participate in community development.

It is sometimes difficult to understand the actions of a person who, in all honestly, had very little power. He did not have a tank or a plane; yet he refused to use the only weapon he was given because he firmly believed that respect for human life is paramount. His actions had a profound impact on people from all walks of life, from all countries and from all religions. His time as Pope, which was marked by open-mindedness and co-operation with other religions, was anchored in tradition and a strong cultural attachment.

However, we can say that in many ways his struggle mirrored that of our party, the NDP. My colleagues will understand why I say this. During a visit to Haiti in 1983, he spoke to Haitian Christians about the importance of democratic accountability and freedom, in addition to addressing Duvalier's corrupt government. He talked to the crowd about a series of policy issues that could have been taken from an NDP policy book. These issues included having the opportunity to get enough food, receive proper care, find safe housing, go to school and find an interesting and well-paid job. In short, he talked about everything that provides a better quality of life for men and women, youth, the elderly and workers.

I would like to ask my colleagues on the other side of the House to vote in line with us when we put these policies on the table. I would also ask them to stop being so closed-minded.

Pope John Paul II was a symbol of freedom and change. He was recognized for his humility when he publicly apologized for the role the church played in more than 100 historical wrongs.

I truly believe that John Paul II deserves a day that not only celebrates his work as a religious and spiritual man, but also celebrates this great man who had but one mission and one vision: to ensure that universal peace reigns in the hearts of all nations.

To conclude, I will just reiterate that Pope John Paul II is an important figure in Roman Catholic history. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2004 and spoke out against oppressive measures in eastern Europe and many other countries. Pope John Paul II was committed to peace and dialogue between different religions.

For all these reasons, I will support this bill.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and humbled to have an opportunity to rise and support Bill C-266.

I was proud to support the creation of a day honouring Pope John Paul II when it was first brought forward in the last Parliament by my colleague Andrew Kania, then the member of Parliament for Brampton West, and I am certainly thankful that the bill was reintroduced in this Parliament by the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.

Even in this day and age, it is impossible to deny the significance and impact of the pope, not just in religious life but also in international affairs. Just look at the amount of coverage that resulted from the retirement of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis. Roman Catholic or not, the world was captivated both by the process and by the pending impact of whomever was elected.

Coming of age in a traditional Italian-Canadian family in Guelph meant that the pope and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church played a significant role in our day-to-day lives, yet few popes played so large a role as the man who was born Karol Józef Wojtyla in Wadowice, Poland, in 1920.

More than just a religious leader, he was a political figurehead and a light to the many millions oppressed by communism across Europe in the midst of the Cold War, one so significant that Russia's KGB considered his championship against Communism a major threat.

As a young man studying for the priesthood in secret, outside the watch of the German forces occupying Poland during the Second World War, he developed a keen sensitivity to the oppressive impact of totalitarianism and within that saw first-hand the need for humble service and compassion in the face of terror and brutality. Very early, he allied himself first and foremost with the people he served.

Very early in my life, my parents instilled in me an understanding of the value of servant leadership, a powerful notion that genuine fulfillment in life is found first and foremost by being of service to others.

It was this great yet humble young priest who understood this and, in fact, put it best, when he said that a person “can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself”. This same priest made his apostolic motto when he was elected to the papacy “Totus Tuus”, which translates into English from Latin as “totally yours”.

I was always reminded, in attempting to understand this model, the example set by St. Francis of Assisi, who, in his namesake prayer, asked to be made an instrument of peace, to understand before being understood, that the emptiness of hatred might be filled by love and injury forgiven. Doubt is replaced by faith, despair by hope, darkness by light, and sadness by joy. Quite frankly, and regardless of faith or creed, this should be a touchstone to which we all aspire when we run for public office. We must aspire to be agents of positive change in the lives of others and in the lives of our children and grandchildren and all of the people around us whom we both lead and serve.

As a priest, later bishop, then cardinal and finally pope, John Paul II was just such an instrument of peace and a beacon for those under terrible oppression. His role in bringing about the end of communism, particularly in Poland, in conjunction with the Solidarity movement, cannot be underestimated.

In fact, noted historian Timothy Garton Ash pointed out that “Without the Pope, no Solidarity. Without Solidarity, no Gorbachev. Without Gorbachev, no fall of Communism”.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev himself said that the Iron Curtain's collapse would not have been possible without John Paul II's intervention. What an almost incalculable contribution Pope John Paul made to world peace and the pursuit of human dignity that accompanies human rights.

Recognizing his role as a builder of bridges between groups and communities across the world, he once said, “I wish to make an earnest call to everyone, Christians and the followers of other religions, that we all work together to build a world without violence, a world that loves life, and grows justice and solidarity”.

Bearing witness to this commitment, it was under his papacy that a pontiff first made an official visit to a synagogue when he visited the Great Synagogue of Rome in spring 1986. He again made history 14 years later when he visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where he quietly deposited a prayer for forgiveness for the terrible actions against Jews that had caused them so much suffering. Similarly, John Paul II made great efforts to bridge divides between Catholicism and Islam as the first pontiff to enter and pray inside a mosque.

Much of his work as pope was done in the hope of fostering religious tolerance and greater understanding between sects and denominations across the world. He was as much an ambassador of the good will he wished to promote as the leader of billions of Roman Catholics across the world.

Even in his later years, there was no question that people young and old were drawn to him. On one of his many trips to Canada, he travelled to Toronto for World Youth Day in 2002, drawing a crowd of 800,000 people to Downsview Park. In an age when engagement, particularly youth engagement, is in decline and people are identifying less and less with any religion, it was a powerful and telling testament to his position as a peacemaker and his influence as a leader.

While it was my faith and my Catholic education that informed many of my opinions of him while growing up, it was a clear and inarguable understanding of his accomplishments that can lead even a non-Catholic observer to the conclusion that he is among the greatest humanitarians of the 20th century. Father Frank Freitas, pastor of St. Mary of the Visitation Church in Cambridge, shared the following observation with me:

Blessed John Paul II emerged on the world scene not as a political force but a force for good. Over and over he seemed to echo the words, “be not afraid; do not give in to discouragement”. This message was not purely a religious one, but a totally realistic one. It was not solely for those who were finding it hard to believe, to trust or to walk in faith, but it was for all who were seeking, even on the world stage of leadership, to do what was right and good. His international interventions contributed to freedom for many who were oppressed. He sought by the power of his convictions to lead, not unaware of the struggle but unwavered by it. To lead without fear can be difficult when parts of the world, even today, seem to operate with a lack of the basic moral standard of human dignity, when innocence is removed by war, famine, hardship and suffering. Yet Pope John Paul's life message, as relevant today as it was when first proclaimed in 1978, crosses religious lines to enter as a straight line to the heart of all of us, especially those in leadership—do what is true; stand up for what is right, proclaim what is just, be a standard bearer for what is good, testify to what is fair, and do not be afraid.

Pope John Paul II was a man of courage and humility and deep internal strength, all spawned and nurtured by an even deeper faith. His model was one that men and women of all backgrounds, when seeking to lead, should aspire to follow. He was as strong a communicator in his actions as in his words, by giving proof of the better path we should all follow to build a better world in which to live.

I think it is only fitting, and I am sure that everyone in this esteemed House agrees, that we offer his as a model for future generations and memorialize our recognition of his work by commemorating him on April 2 every year, the anniversary of his passing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

Accordingly, I ask the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for his five-minute right of reply.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very emotional at this moment. I never imagined that I would have the opportunity to introduce this bill and that it would come to this point.

I would like to first thank the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and his parliamentary secretary for their support, the committee of Canadian heritage for its work, and of course all hon. members of this House who took part in the debate on this bill. Whether they spoke in support of or against the bill, I truly value their opinion, as would the late pope because he listened to everybody equally.

I would also like to give special thanks to Father Janusz Blazejak, Father Marian Gil and Father Adam Filas, for their support and encouragement, as well as to Frank Klees, Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and Marek Kornas for their work to promote this idea.

Many thanks to my constituents and people from across Canada who contacted me, voicing their opinion on the bill, many of whom were in support of it and some who had different views than me. However, we live in a democratic country where all of the views of people and their opinions should be listened to and considered.

Therefore, in conclusion I would like to thank all members of this House for their support. I am asking them all to vote in favour of this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

The House resumed from May 29 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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill that was introduced in this House literally at midnight very recently. Bill S-10, as it indicates, comes from the Senate. Here we go again.

I mentioned in my comments responding to the government's closure motion, which is the 45th time the government has brought in time allocation, we should have debated this bill thoroughly and been given a chance for close examination of it for two reasons. It is extremely important because it is about an international treaty we signed on to in 2008. It is a bill that has been sitting around with the government for quite a while, but its origins were in the Senate. It is problematic that we have an unelected body yet again having the first go at legislation. It is wrong, and in this case, it has undermined the treaty that we signed. I will explain that in a minute.

We have to take issue in this House when bills come from the other place, because it is up to us to deal with bills as elected members to start with.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for consent to share my time with my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I thank the House for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at how the bills have been coming from the Senate, there is a pattern here. We are not able to have a close examination of the bills, and they come from the other place with major flaws. That is the case in this bill.

The whole issue of cluster munitions is something that many people have been working on for a very long time. These are heinous, awful arms.To explain to those who are not aware, they are bombs that contain what they call bomblets. These bombs are dropped, often in a theatre of war, and as they are dropped, bomblets fall out from them, hundreds of bomblets that are the size of tennis balls.

They are heinous because 98% of the people who are affected by them are civilians. We are talking about children. I could show members pictures online of children who have lost arms and legs, people who have died. They are as bad as land mines, and some people would say even worse because of the way in which they are used and the way they affect, particularly, kids.

The global stockpile of cluster munitions totals approximately four billion. We have a large task to rid ourselves of them. That is what this treaty we signed on to was supposed to do. In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines and cluster bombs. These are bombs that are used in theatre where our armed forces are active, as well as civilians.

If we take a look how these arms are developed, they are quite heinous because their intention is to, essentially, trick people into believing that they are not bombs, that they are actually something else, just like land mines are horrific. There is no question we have to get rid of them.

As to the history of cluster munitions, they were used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, by the British in the Falklands, by our coalition forces in the first Gulf War, by warring factions in Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. In fact, when we look back to previous conflicts, we have seen them used by coalition forces working together.

In 2010, it was decided that we would come together and have a treaty that would ban them. This included 18 NATO members. The U.S., sadly, was not one of them. The current American policy, according to reports, is that cluster munitions are available for use by every combat aircraft in the U.S. inventory. They are integral to every army or marine manoeuvre element and, in some cases, constitute up to 50% of tactical indirect fire support. As in the case of land mines, the Americans have some work to do to get rid of them.

We also have to go after other countries like Russia, and China, to push to have these banned. We can lead here; many people were quite enthusiastic when Canada signed on to this treaty. The problem was when the legislation came forward. That is where we are today.

What we have in front of us is a bill that would, and this is not just the opinion of the NDP members or me, undermine the credibility of the treaty we signed on to, to the point where people are saying it would be better not to have legislation at all. That is truly saddening, because this was an opportunity for all parties to get behind an international treaty, a treaty that would put us into the same kind of frame that we had when we were proud to sign on to the Ottawa protocol to ban land mines. We hoped that would have happened. When the government brought forward the legislation, Bill S-10, we looked at it and said there are problems here. People went to committee at the Senate and pointed out all of the problems with the legislation; in particular, the problem in clause 11.

It states, and I will put it into everyday language, that even though we have signed on to this treaty not to use cluster munitions, we could actually use them. It is a huge, massive loophole, and the language is the interoperability.

Instead of listening to the people who deal with international treaties and have them lead, which would be the Department of Foreign Affairs, the government took the advice clearly, there is no question about this, only from the Department of National Defence. Should the Department of National Defence be consulted? Absolutely. Should the Department of National Defence write the legislation or drive the legislation? Absolutely not. This is an international treaty that was negotiated with our allies and partners. This is an act of diplomacy. To have the Department of National Defence decide the terms, like we saw here, has undermined this legislation.

It is not even about being a standby with our friends from the United States, for example, and they were using them, which is bad enough, but what it means in this legislation is that we could be actually using them because of this loophole.

It means that this treaty we signed on to is being undermined by the government and the bill, and the Conservatives do not recognize it. We have had testimony from people who negotiated this. The chief negotiator, Earl Turcotte said, “the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date”.

Why does the government not listen to expert advice? Another quote, former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said, “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”. That is a former prime minister of one of our allies. The reason he is saying that is because he actually cares about ridding the world of these heinous arms. What does the government do? It says it will not even entertain amendments.

I would hope the Conservatives would listen to their own Minister of National Defence. I will finish with this. The Minister of National Defence earlier today said it is not perfect. He indicated in his own comments that this is something that needs to be changed. Given that the minister admitted that the Conservatives are forcing through a bill that is not up to standard, I would hope sincerely that they would be open this time, because this issue is so important to our allies, and that they would listen to those who want to see amendments. Every single person who went through committee who was not part of the Department of National Defence said the bill is flawed, it is wrong, we should not pass it and it would undermine our credibility.

If the Conservatives want to listen to others or just be stubborn and steadfast and only listen to themselves, they have a choice. We need to amend it and for that reason, we will not support the bill until we see amendments.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his very strong speech. He has made clear the great weaknesses in this bill.

One truly deplorable aspect was not addressed in my colleague’s speech, and that is the fact that this bill comes from the Senate. I must also point out that we are debating something so fundamental under a time limitation.

Canada has already played a special role in undermining the negotiation of the convention, but Bill S-10 goes much farther. It offers an outright loophole, so that Canada can be complicit in the use and even the manufacture of cluster munitions.

Would my colleague like to talk about the fact that this bill has come, unfortunately, from the Senate? It could have come from the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example. In other words, the government has not played straight with the House with respect to this issue that is so sensitive.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge problem. Where was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this? Seriously, he has a job. Around the cabinet table here is how it should work. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should be the one who owns this. What happened? He is silent on it. He has not spoken out on it and he is okay with this going through the way it is. That means he is not doing his job, frankly.

I would like to quote from the World Federalist Movement, which has been focused on this issue for years. It said:

If our government cannot implement the CCM in a manner that is consistent with the treaty’s fundamental objects and purposes, then it would be better if we just didn’t pass any implementing legislation at all. It would be better to stand outside of the treaty altogether, rather than undermine it with legislation that sets a notorious precedent and creates incentives for others to write their own exceptions and loopholes.

With this legislation, that is what we are dealing with. The minister has failed to do his job and do his due diligence.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has failed to convince anyone outside of the two or three feet around him of the merits of his argument. The NDP has cited all kinds of procedural reasons for not passing disciplining legislation, why it needs more debate, why it is inadequate. The New Democrats do not like the fact that there is a second chamber to Parliament, even though it has been there since the inception of Confederation, even though it is part of our Constitution today that we have to make democracy work in our country.

However, let us get down to basics. Why does the New Democratic Party, the official opposition of our country, refuse to expeditiously pass legislation that represents an important step forward for arms control in the world, that is part of a great Canadian tradition on the disarmament and arms control front and that is long overdue, because Parliament was in a minority for too long?