Debates of May 29th, 2014

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's closing comments. He talked about the importance of the bill going to committee, and we concur.

There is no doubt that this is a step forward in principle. There are many aspects of the legislation that are long overdue. However, it is important to recognize that with some strategic amendments, we could give more strength to the legislation. This could enrich the legislation to the point where it would be stronger, and all of us would benefit from that.

To what degree does the member feel the government will be open to opposition amendments? It seems, even from the government side, that there is a need to add some additional meat to the bones. Would he like to provide comments on how important it is for us to make those changes?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for all of his hard work on behalf of his constituents.

Today, I read an op-ed in the Manitoba Co-operator, where my colleague from Welland was quoted as saying that we all came together as parties to move through Bill C-30, the railway act. Here we had this instance of co-operation. It is something that often does not happen. All parties got together, the government listened, we made suggestions and, all of a sudden, we had a bill that benefited all Canadians.

This is a golden opportunity for this bill to go to committee and for the government to listen and not do what it did, for example, when I was on the agriculture committee studying the food safety bill. Both the NDP and the Liberal Party provided something like 25 amendments, and not one was accepted. That is not how government works and that is not how democracy should work. This is an opportunity.

I welcome the question from the member for Winnipeg North. I really hope that once it gets to committee, we will have this debate and strengthen the bill so it will be our bill on behalf of Canadians, not just the government's bill.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent speech. He provided an excellent explanation of all the good aspects of the bill and of the elements that should be fixed.

The NDP, the official opposition, supports the polluter pays principle. The Conservatives claim they also support the polluter pays principle. However, although this bill is a step in the right direction, it does not quite go far enough. Once again, the taxpayers, the everyday citizen, including the people of Drummond who pay their taxes, will have to foot the bill for any disasters that result from accidents.

Could my colleague speak a little more about his position on the polluter pays principle? How would the bill have to be improved in order to observe the polluter pays principle, which is a principle of sustainable development?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I also thank him for the work he does for his constituents and the work he does in the House.

Taxpayers should not be responsible for the mistakes made by large corporations. Oil companies must absolutely contribute and must pay when there are environmental risks. That should not be up to taxpayers.

The issue is not only the $1-billion limit. What would happen if it cost $2 billion? Would that mean that taxpayers would have to cover the $1-billion difference? I do not think so.

The bill must absolutely include the polluter pays principle, not just for the nuclear and oil industries, but also for all industries. If you run the risk, you pay the price.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, agreeing on legislation is already quite a difficult exercise, but the other problem is that, with this government, passing legislation is absolutely no guarantee that it will be implemented.

We are told that we will have very strict safety standards. It looks really nice on paper, but what about their day-to-day application?

For the past two years, the practice of transporting oil by rail has increased by 900%. We should therefore expect that there is a decent railway safety system in place. Is there?

Regarding the number of audit investigations, only 26% of the minimum number of audits is carried out, and 100% of these 26% are poorly done. That is unbelievable. In addition, there is no follow-up of violations. This has got to be the pinnacle of mediocrity. It is a remake of the Pan Am Airways scandal, when they charged clients an additional fee to guarantee their safety, but it was only a marketing scheme. In fact, the company had changed absolutely nothing. We also know what happened with Lockerbie. This is another problem.

We can argue about legislation, but when the government still refuses to implement it, this is when we get such poor results. This is when a Lac-Mégantic disaster happens.

There have been major developments in terms of nuclear liability. The nuclear industry of 1976 and the nuclear industry of today are very different creatures. There are mining facilities where ore enrichment is carried out. This is also a dangerous process. Nuclear plants are not the only ones at risk of exploding. Nuclear plant explosions are bad enough, but now there are more and bigger mines that have ore enrichment processes. That is dangerous. This is something new. It must be discussed.

The nuclear industry also produces medical materials for treatments. Radioactivity is used for medical purposes, if you will. There are plants that make these materials. There are plants that handle radioactive materials. This is dangerous. We must discuss this as well. Therefore, the dangers that were noted in 1976 are very different from the dangers today. We must talk about this and we must make regulations. We must be sure that Canadians are protected and that they are compensated adequately in the event of an accident.

If it costs $2 billion or $3 billion, will you tell Canadians that you are sorry and that it is first come first served? When there is no more money, will you say that is just too bad for them? I do not think that Canadians will particularly like this. It will be up to the taxpayers to foot the bill.

For people who say they want to protect taxpayers, they are being awfully generous to those who systematically expect taxpayers to pick up the tab. Canadians should not be the ones paying the price for these situations.

This law has been in need of change since 1976. Here is a fact: in 1976, inflation was at 10%.

I do not need to point out that, even back then, $40 million was too little. Imagine what that is worth now. It is not enough for anything. All it would pay for is relocating people to a hotel for a few days. That would eat up the $40 million. That number really needs updating.

We want something comprehensive. That is why we are sending it to committee. We have things to talk about and we need to hear from experts. The experts will give us some very interesting information. We have to take the time to listen to them.

What can I say about the wonderful stuff that is oil? Do we need it? Yes. Will we keep needing it? Yes.

I listened to the comments by my colleague from British Columbia. When I was in the northern part of that province, I saw what they were using as a rescue boat.

Believe it or not, it was basically a rowboat. Anyone who thinks a little motorboat can stop an out-of-control tanker from running aground off the coast of British Columbia is mistaken. The Coast Guard is definitely not equipped to deal with these challenges. They have nothing.

Unfortunately, the people who promise to respect the environment and so on are the same detestable bunch that did such a wonderful job in Port Valdez, the same rotten pack that did such fabulous work in the Gulf of Guinea and the Gulf of Mexico, the same despicable gang that performed so admirably off the coast of the Philippines. Those people never paid the bills. The Exxon Valdez cost $7 billion, and the case is still before the courts. Nobody was ever compensated, and that was a long time ago now. No, those people do not want to pay for their irresponsible actions. It might be a good idea for Canada to have ways to protect itself from that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 9:36 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier this day, 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.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Bill C-17—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

Bill C-27—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (enhancing hiring opportunities for certain serving and former members of the Canadian Forces).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in Amendment

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting the short title.

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

(seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre) moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to our amendments to Bill C-6.

We have debated this bill before. In fact, we had an iteration of the bill from the Senate before, in which we had concerns at the time of where the bill was originating from. I will not go over that tonight.

Bill C-6 is a very important piece of legislation. Sadly, it took the government quite a while to bring in legislation for the cluster munitions treaty.

Perhaps I will start by going over the treaty itself. The convention was built upon the Ottawa treaty, which was very successful, and we are all very proud of it. That was the Ottawa land mines treaty convention. It was built upon that treaty to rid the world of these horrific weapons: cluster munitions. It was signed by 118 countries, which is significant as that is more than three-quarters of the member states of the UN, with 84 countries ratifying it. In fact, in terms of the process, there were negotiations, and the Dublin process and Oslo process followed it. What we ended up with was a convention that was important for the whole issue of disarmament and to rid the world of these horrific munitions.

I think everyone is aware of what land mines are, but what is so horrific about cluster munitions is that they are very difficult to source. They fall from the sky and are particularly vicious in the sense that they are often misunderstood by those in war zones as being toys. These bombs are as small as a D battery. These bomblets are dropped from the sky and explode across the terrain. They are very difficult to discover and, of course, to clean up. The damage caused from them has been horrific in conflicts right across the world. They have maimed and killed children and adults. People have wanted to rid the world of these munitions for a very long time.

It is important to note that at times the world has come together to focus on disarmament. I mentioned the Ottawa treaty, which was to work to rid the world of land mines. That has been successful, but more work needs to be done. However, this is on cluster munitions, which is something that people have worked on for quite a while.

I have two testimonies to give members an idea of the cluster munition.

The first is from Remzi Mehmeti from South Serbia. Remzi's 15-year-old son was walking home with his three friends and picked up two unexploded cluster bomblets. His son died and his friends were injured.

This testimony is from Mai Chi, who is a demining expert in Vietnam.

I saw the pliers and a pair of broken sunglasses that the children had used to tamper with the submunition, in an attempt to get scrap metal to sell for cash...

By the way, this is a typical kind of work for children in developing countries.

The quote goes on with:

I saw a pair of torn sandals, a hole on the floor and the ball bearings from the submunition.

I walked closer to the bed in the centre of the house. Someone pulled the blanket up, revealing two dead bodies. Legs and hands were smashed and blown away.

What a terrifying scene. I closed my eyes, feeling breathless and ran out. People were crying louder and louder.

These children had taken scrap metal, brought it home and did what they usually did with scrap metal, which was pull it apart. In doing so, they had no idea they were pulling apart a cluster munition. It blew up and killed them both. This is why we have to get rid of cluster munitions.

I am saddened to say that we have tried to work with the government. We have made propositions. We have brought amendments tonight to change the implementation of this treaty. As members know, when a state signs a treaty, that is the first step. It is to say that the treaty is here and we will sign it. For instance, I was encouraging the government today to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. As was mentioned by a colleague in the House, we have not done so, along with other countries like Russia, Syria, and other countries that are the usual suspects in not signing these treaties.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been pilloried by many experts and those who strongly believe in the whole idea of banning the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other sections. Clause 11 allows Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not be in joint operations with them while they were using those particular armaments. This bill has a void in it, a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre where one of our allies is using these munitions. This is not acceptable.

I will read clause 11 into the record, but I will omit the first part of the paragraph. It allows “Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention” to direct or authorize “an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition”.

What that does is basically work against the whole notion and spirit of the convention. I have gone over this with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have talked to the government on many occasions. Clause 11 works against the spirit and the notion of the convention. What we are saying to the government in these amendments is that if it is interested in taking a leadership role when it comes to cluster munitions, then it has to have the legislation that lives up to that. What the treaty asks of the member states who sign it is to basically get rid any stockpiles they have and not to use them if there is an occasion when there are cluster munitions in theatre. It is fine for us to say that we do not have any or that we will get rid of them, but it is another thing to say that we will not use them.

It is not just the NDP saying this. Let me quote from some of the people who are critical of this legislation, to the point where they are saying that we must vote against this legislation because it undermines the treaty.

For instance, the Red Cross, which never speaks out on legislation, feels strongly about this issue. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Red Cross have said that clause 11 would:

...permit activities that undermine the object and purpose of the [cluster munitions treaty] and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than bringing about their elimination.

The Red Cross is saying that clause 11 would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the treaty.

Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser said the following at committee:

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.

This is important to note, because former prime minister Malcolm Fraser is an expert not only on cluster munitions but on disarmament. He knows what he speaks of.

Therefore, our amendments are to try to fix this bill so that we can be proud of our signature on the treaty. Sadly, what the Conservatives have done is give us a treaty that undermines their reputation and their signature, and we believe it is not adequate.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He has done a lot of work on this issue. I would just very briefly ask him about the fact that when it comes to clause 11, we are not following the spirit of what was done with the former treaty when we talked about land mines. Could he comment and further expand on that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland is absolutely right. As I said in my speech, what we had with the Ottawa treaty and the implementation of that treaty was clear definition around interoperability: we would not use or be in theatre when land mines were being used by any of our allies. This undermines that.

If I may just read into the record, Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, said:

Canada should have the best domestic legislation in the world. We need to make it clear that no Canadian will ever be involved with a weapon again but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.

Again, this is one particular section of the bill that really undermines the spirit of the convention and goes in the opposite direction of what we did with the Ottawa protocol and the Ottawa land mines treaty.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent speech. He did a fine job explaining how the Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is seriously flawed.

We are in the process of distorting the Convention on Cluster Munitions when, as my honourable colleague explained so well, it is a convention that urgently needs to be signed. A total of 113 countries have already signed it and 84 countries have ratified it, while Canada is lagging behind on this international issue. This is not the first time under the Conservative government that Canada has been lagging behind at the international level when it should be leading by example. In that respect, the passage of this bill as it is currently worded would be a major step back in terms of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

I would like my colleague to speak to the importance of adopting the amendments we are proposing so that we can resume our role as a leader in international affairs, including in this area.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point.

I will read into the record what was said by Earl Turcotte, one of the former negotiators for DFAIT on this treaty. He left because he saw what was happening. He said the following:

...the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention, to date.

It fails to fulfill Canada's obligations under international humanitarian law; it fails to protect vulnerable civilians in war-ravaged countries around the world; it betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated this treaty in good faith, and it fails Canadians who expect far better from our nation.

This is one of the people who helped negotiate the treaty on our behalf. I should note, which I did not mention in my comments and is also important to note, that these munitions disproportionately affect civilians. More than 90% of the people who are affected by these horrific Denel munitions are civilians. This is something we need to take seriously. We have to get it right, and that is why we are proposing the amendments to the legislation: to get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks by expressing my deep gratitude to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, both for his championing of this issue and for his generosity in seconding my amendment this evening, so that I can explain the reasons that the Green Party is so very disappointed with what is before us here in Bill C-6.

We had a chance to get it right. We had a chance to stand with the community of nations and fulfill the promise of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. As my hon. colleague has mentioned, Canada played a significant role. We got a reputation globally as being willing to step out ahead when there was the Ottawa process to deal with land mines. It is in that vein that we are going to go forward and deal with cluster munitions.

As was just mentioned, it is estimated that between 95% and 98% of the casualties from cluster munitions are civilians. Of that, 40% are children. These are not weapons of war. These are monstrous tools of destruction for the innocent, and Canada should rightly be at the forefront in ensuring that such munitions are never used again.

I want to quote from the treaty, which we have actually signed. We have signed this convention, and the legislation before us is required as a tool to bring that treaty into force for Canada. For ratification we need a domestic law. Unfortunately, this domestic law has tilted in the wrong direction.

Let us just look at the language of the convention. Canada has signed this treaty. As a state party to the convention, we are:

Deeply concerned that civilian populations and individual citizens continue to bear the brunt of armed conflict. Determined [that is a good verb] to put an end for all time to the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions at the time of their use, when they fail to function as intended or when they are abandoned. Concerned that cluster munition remnants kill or maim civilians, including women and children....

In this vein, we continue to have the language of commitment, of concern to protect human life from weapons that are designed specifically to destroy human populations, civilian populations, and do damage to the innocent.

The operative section of the convention is very important, and I want to return to it for a few of the things that the bill fails to do. Article 1, the general obligations and scope of application, commits Canada to the following:

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to: (a) Use cluster munitions; (b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;

The third part of this important paragraph is really significant. It states:

(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

Those are the key operative phrases. Then we have Bill C-6, which is largely a carve-out that says we were just kidding when we said “never under any circumstances”. We have a bunch of circumstances in which Canadian Armed Forces are going to be working alongside one of our military allies. It is clearly intended. As my hon. friend mentioned, so far the United States has not ratified this treaty, so we know that we might be in a theatre of operations—as we now describe wars—with our allies, namely the United States. They might be using cluster munitions, and we would want to safeguard our ability to work alongside them.

I will acknowledge and I do accept that this is a large and important move for this particular Conservative administration, because it so rarely changes any bill. My hon. friend, who is the parliamentary secretary, moved in committee to remove the opportunity for any Canadian soldier or military operation to actually use the weapons, but the bill still allows us to participate, to be alongside in a shared military operation with an ally that is not a party to this convention.

There was other language put forward in various presentations to the committee that would have protected Canadian operations if they were in such a shared military operation with a non-party state. There was other language that would have worked very well. Human Rights Watch suggested that we could replace clause 11 with the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of the paragraphs...[which are referenced] of the National Defence Act or who is an employee as defined...[and this is the operative portion] in the course of military cooperation, our combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from merely participating in military cooperation or operations with a foreign country that is not a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

That would have vouchsafed. That would have been the protection the Canadian military would have needed for the circumstance for which we have created a far too aggressive exemption in clause 11.

It is a great tragedy that we had one amendment. I have to say that one amendment in the current context of this particular Parliament, coming from the government, is unusual and it was welcomed, but it did not go far enough to rescue this from being, as my hon. friend has said, the weakest of all the implementing legislation of any nation that has so far signed this convention.

It leaves us in a position that is really rather shameful.

I want to return to one of the other areas. I mentioned that in the convention language, we are obligated as a convention party to do nothing to assist or induce anyone to engage in an activity prohibited here.

A great number of nations have, in interpreting that section in which we are prohibited from assisting, interpreted it very clearly to mean that there should be a ban on investment. There should be no investments allowed. In order to comply with this treaty, Canada should ban anyone from investing in any of the operations of any of the providers of cluster munitions.

There is nothing in this legislation that stops companies in Canada or investors in Canada from actually assisting through their financial investments. That is the kind of amendment that should have been included, and it is not here.

I pointed out that the following nations have actually ensured, through legislation, that no investment in cluster munitions be allowed. That is included in legislation from Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Samoa, and Switzerland.

As an interpretive decision, so too have other nations said that they understand this convention to mean that they must not allow any investment in cluster munitions. In taking the interpretive decision, the U.K. and a larger group of nations, including Germany, Norway, and many others, have decided they cannot understand this convention without understanding that they have to ban investment in cluster munitions.

We have lost the moral high ground here. We are slipping down to where we have signed a convention that says we are completely committed to never, under any circumstance, use or encourage or assist in the spread of these deadly, immoral weapons of assault on civilians. We will never do that, we say, yet somehow, when we read Bill C-6, we feel that we have crossed our fingers behind our backs. We mean “never” most of the time, but sometimes we are going to be in a theatre of war and we do not want to be too bound by our word under the convention to ban cluster munitions.

In this place we still have time to remedy that. The hon. member for Ottawa South has put forward an amendment. The Green Party has put forward an amendment. Should this House assembled decide that Canada can reclaim the moral high ground, we still have time.

We have the moral courage. We are Canadians. We stand for peace. We believe that children should not be blown up because they find a piece of metal and think they can recover that scrap metal to buy their family supper.

We are, by God, Canadians, and we stand for peace, and we stand against war, and we stand against cluster munitions. Bill C-6 says “not really”. Let us amend the bill here and now at third reading and report stage.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the global stockpile of cluster munitions and submunitions totals approximately four billion, with a quarter of these in U.S. hands right now. In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 were wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices. This is a real question for us right now, for reasons I just mentioned, if we do not get this right and we do not implement this treaty. I believe it is not just about this treaty, but it is about a precedent we are setting when it comes to international treaties. I would like her comment on that.

In committee the Conservatives said that it would not happen. They said we would never have a situation in which one of our generals would order one of our Canadian Forces members to go in theatre with a member state that had cluster munitions. However, I do not think that is good enough. It is about the precedents we are setting by undermining the treaty. I would like to hear her comments on that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, for my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre, I would love to believe that the hypothetical would not arise, but we are living in a time when the basic understanding of how a civilized country behaves seems to be slipping between our fingers.

Our greatest ally and friend is the United States. I have great respect for Barack Obama and I think he is a wonderful and inspiring human being, except he has ordered more unmanned drones to commit illegal murders in other countries than any previous U.S. president. We seem to be taking a very mild approach to the threat of torture. I never thought I would hear a Canadian minister of the crown speak of the possibility that because other things were a bigger threat, the government did not really mind if somebody got information by torture.

There is a lot of moral relativism going on right now in relation to whether we are a civilized country and stand for anything. I believe we are. I believe we always will be. However, this kind of climb down from the treaty commitments that we made, bringing forward legislation that is so weak, indicates that we are prepared to say one thing and do another, because when push comes to shove, we do not stand for anything. I do not think that is what Canadians want to see.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity on many occasions to sit down and have discussions with a former minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. Lloyd played a very important role in terms of the land mines deal that ultimately demonstrated that Canada, if it did it right, could play a very strong leadership role on issues of this nature.

Could the leader of the Green Party provide some comment on the leadership role Canada could play if it chose to do so? What I reflect on is the land mine treaty deal in which Canada did play a critical role, and that is why we are where we are today with the land mines.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the lines of our former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy to whom the member refers. He used to say that we punched above our weight. We really do. We are a relatively small population of the globe, a relatively small economy, yet Canadian leadership has accomplished so much historically. That is not a small thing.

Going back further, before he was prime minister the former minister of foreign affairs, Lester B. Pearson, resolved the Suez Crisis in such a way that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. In that exercise, he created the concept of having a peacekeeping force. It is not for nothing. It has been Canadian leadership in drafting the UN charter, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Law of the Sea.

If we look around the world at some of the fundamental documents that speak to multilateralism and improving the life of a community of nations through a system of rules and respect, we see that Canadian leadership has always been there. Now we are losing ground. We are losing our global reputation. I see it every time I go to a climate negotiation. It breaks my heart when people look at our accreditation and say, “Oh you're Canadian. Why do you people even bother coming anymore?”

We need to reclaim that global leadership. If we accept the amendments before us, we can begin to rebuild that reputation.