Debates of June 16th, 2014

Report Stage

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a few things my colleague said about importing the language from the convention and do a little follow-up on the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' comments.

From legal counsel the comment in committee was it is very difficult a lot times to use treaty language because the words mean very different things.

When we started, we started with the cluster munitions convention. In this particular case, we took the language of the convention as a starting point and then we had to look at how we would blend this into Canadian criminal court law.

As I said earlier, stockpiling became possession because, in fact, they said there is really no way without defining it what an offence of stockpiling would be. If we criminalize possession, then we have caught somebody who has one cluster munition or 10,000. It does not matter. It is a broader offence, so it is much more collective than the munitions treaty.

He also talked about transfers. What they had to do in the convention is more of a state to state, as opposed to in the criminal court.

While I respect his opinion, I differ. That is why the government is going forward with the legislation.

Does he not also understand that legally, we are required to pass laws in this place which are applicable in a criminal court in Canada? In this case, he must agree that the convention does not adequately address coverage in a criminal court.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so I do not know the language that my hon. colleague is talking about. However, I will state what some of the experts are saying about this particular legislation. I can only take their word. These are not my words; these are the words of renowned experts in their fields.

Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, stated:

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

Another expert, Mr. Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for Mine Action at DFAIT, stated:

In my view, the proposed Canadian 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.

To me, this makes sense, rather than the legal language that my friend—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

I would like to point out that Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, has an enormous number of weaknesses. Today, in 2014, no one can really be unaware of all the damage and deaths caused by cluster munitions.

These days, it is children who are particularly the victims, and they will continue to be for years to come. It is therefore high time to take the necessary action to put an end to cluster munitions.

My colleague said that clause 11 presented a real problem in that it is contradictory. Could he pursue that line of thought further?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this convention was completed back in December 2008. It is a serious matter when we are talking about munitions. They are very dangerous. They last a long time, even after they are dropped. They cause serious damage to people who come in contact with these explosives.

The Conservatives have been sitting on this since 2008. They had the opportunity to bring this forward many years ago. We are now in 2014. It took them six years to address this issue which is very important around the world. They sat on their seats, basically.

Again, I urge the government to adopt the amendments we are offering to improve the bill and to show leadership around the world.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate my colleague from Surrey North on his very thoughtful speech on this important legislation.

Once again, let me reiterate that time allocation has been imposed for the 73rd time, this time on a bill that I think everyone in this room would agree is critical. This is not something to make light of, this is not comic relief. This bill deals with the very serious issue of cluster bombs.

I want to remind all members that when we look at this, Canadian soldiers have been victims of cluster bombs. In 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of land mines, cluster bombs, and other explosive devices. It is important that when we deal with this legislation, we get this right. The expediency of pushing things through and not addressing all the issues that have been raised by both experts, our international partners and by the opposition should not be made light of in this context.

We all know that cluster munitions can release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short time. We also know that it is civilians who end up being the victims after the conflict has ended.

We took part in the Oslo process to produce a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. That came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa treaty on banning land mines. I still remember when that happened. I was in my classroom going over this with my students. I remember how critical it was. Some of us worked on that for years. When I look at the legislation, I think of it as critical legislation that goes hand-in-hand with land mines and the government is trying to water it down by building more exceptions into it.

I understand some countries have not signed it, such as the U.S., China and Russia. They have stockpiles, and we have no control over that. What we do have control over is how we put a treaty into operation, a convention that we have signed with many other countries. That is the critical issue today.

I hear a lot from my colleagues across the way that we need to learn to compromise, that we should not continue to debate things, rather we should vote to expedite everything through the House. My appeal to my colleagues across the way is that they listen to some of the input from the experts and the specialists, pay attention to what we have signed, and work with us to make it the kind of legislation that we pass through the House by unanimous consent. We should work toward that.

Clause 11 is unnecessary. If it is addressed, then I believe we could expedite this whole process and we would have agreement. Imagine what that would feel like. For that matter, how would I know what that feels like? Ever since I have been in Parliament, all I have seen are time allocations and bullying type tactics to limit debate and push legislation through at a very fast pace. It is at this time we wonder what do we have to gain by doing this. However, it points to an ideology, an ideology that is a plague.

I am beginning to question the government's commitment to this convention, which was signed by Canada. If the Conservatives were really committed to it, why would they be watering it down right now?

When it comes to international conventions and implementing them, it is really important to keep the language clear and not have too many grey areas, because those grey areas give escape hatches to all kinds of people. There are 113 countries that have signed the convention and 84 have ratified it. How many years has it taken us? We signed it in 2008 and we are now in 2014.

By the way, the Conservatives first tabled this in the House of Commons in December 2012. When did they decide to bring it back into the House? A couple of days before the summer recess. That is the importance they put on critical legislation. Then they use these very obtuse arguments and say that it is urgent, that we need to get it done quickly, and so we now have time allocation. I have been elected to come to the House to debate issues.

I find it interesting that ever since time allocation was moved, I have not heard any speakers outside of the NDP, which makes a mockery of parliamentary debate. Not only do the Conservatives limit the amount of time, but they sit there and refuse to participate by putting their perspective forward and giving us the opportunity to be persuaded by their brilliant answers to the questions we may ask. I am always open to be persuaded in debate. That is what good debate does. However, that can only happen when all parties take that debate seriously.

When I stand to speak in the House, I stand not only to represent my constituents, but as a Canadian. As a member of Parliament whose government signed a convention, which we are now looking to implement, I am embarrassed by the weakening of it.

Over the last number of years, many of my constituents have come to me and said that they are really getting worried and concerned about how we are perceived internationally.

Let us go to a topic that is very close and dear to my heart, which is the living conditions for some of our aboriginal people. When the rapporteur reported, all my colleagues across the way could do was to vilify instead of acknowledging that we had some serious issues that we all needed to work together to address.

When it comes to labour issues, colleagues across the way, again, have no difficulty in contravening our ILO conventions. When it comes to environmental protection, we seem to look the way and stretch the elastic as far as we can. This is a major concern. However, this is on cluster munitions.

I am very fortunate, as are many of us, that I have not experienced war in my lifetime. I have talked to many veterans and they have horrendous stories to tell from past and current experiences. I think if we were to get them into a room, they would say absolutely no to cluster bombs. We should not be weakening our conventions.

I have so much more to say, because there is such brilliant expert testimony on this to support what I have said, but my time is up. However, I would urge my colleagues to delete clause 11 and I will stand with them to support this legislation.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things during the committee process. The minister was there. To her point with respect to these cluster munitions and how horrific these things are, the minister brought a few examples to committee. They were not real examples, thank goodness, but models. We started to understand why there were many challenges where these were used in the past. Young children pick them up thinking they are toys. Hence, that is why a lot of countries are not using them, including Canada. Unfortunately, even though I do not think the U.S. has used them for quite some time, it still has not chosen to sign on as a signatory.

I want to ask the member the question I have asked before. We are trying to put this legislation into our Criminal Code and we just cannot accept that convention. It just does not work. Our legal people have told us that. I am an accountant, not a lawyer, but they said that we cannot put those UN conventions into our Criminal Code. Is that not important also as part of the reflection of this? It is not going to be a perfect alignment and that is why we need the protections, because the people we work with as part of our joint operations are not signatories, so we need to protect our Canadian soldiers as well.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's very calm and thoughtful question. It is always nice to get thoughtful questions from the other side that are well explained.

Removing clause 11 will not put this legislation into any kind of jeopardy. Right now there is an article in the convention that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states. Therefore, we have that already, and if we import that wording into the bill, it is there. However, clause 11 goes much further. It actually broadens the criteria for exceptions.

I do not want my colleague across the way to take my word for it. Earl Turcotte, former senior coordinator for Mine Action at DFAIT, was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention, and this is what he had to say. He stated:

The proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this is not the first time I have had the opportunity to speak. Quite often when I speak, I speak on behalf of the Liberals, so the Liberals are engaged whether it is at second reading or the bill's current status.

There are endless horror stories involving a wide range of all types of demographics, from young children to adults to members of the forces. There are many horror stories regarding cluster munitions. Earlier this afternoon, I made reference to the fact that Canada could and should play a stronger leadership role on issues of this nature. I cited what one of her colleagues made reference to earlier in his speech, which was the role that Lloyd Axworthy played with regard to land mines.

To what degree does my colleague believe Canada should be lobbying or taking any sort of role with regard to the United States and its position? What would she like to see Canada do with regard to the United States and its position on this issue?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

First, Mr. Speaker, with regard to our friends and other states that are not signatories to this treaty, it is our job to work with them and use our influence on our buddies to persuade them to do the right thing. That is the kind of leadership role Canada has always played. Canada has been a consensus builder. I can remember being a young person in Europe and asking Americans why they were wearing Canadian flags. Do members know what they said? They said that it was because they felt more loved, and safer as well.

It is very easy for Canada to water down a convention it has signed because the Conservatives have a majority, but I will read a quote by an international committee of the Canadian Red Cross. This is what it had to say:

—clause 11...could permit activities that undermine the object and purpose of the convention and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than bringing about their elimination.

It stated that if clause 11 was deleted, the bill would have its support.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some people who are watching do not know what this is about. These are bombs the size of a household water heater that may contain as many as 2,000 small explosive capsules. The bomb is set to explode just before it touches the ground, and its effect is spread over a 100-metre radius. This weapon was invented to kill civilians. In a real combat theatre, it is useless, because soldiers are protected since they are in bunkers or armoured vehicles. This is a genocidal weapon.

When you get to that point, it is because there is a moral problem. We have to ask whether, by accommodating allies who use these weapons, we are not simply becoming accomplices. All of the little provisions in this bill to accommodate the users of these monstrosities mean that we share the blame with murderous countries like Russia and, in certain situations, the United States and China.

All of the countries that refuse to sign want to reserve the right to use them. There is absolutely no justification for using weapons of this kind. Starving children find pretty little coloured canisters and think they contain food. They try to open them and they are disfigured or killed.

The only way to protect our soldiers from being accused of something because these weapons were used is not to engage with allies who use them. We must place conditions on our engagement. I think we are no longer in that position, because we have virtually no diplomatic presence left. We have lost much of our lustre.

The first few times I went to Europe, a lot of Europeans told me what an example our country set and how much Canada had done for peace, in humanitarian terms. Canada is admired for helping to put an end to apartheid.

Every time we make compromises in situations like this, our popularity rating goes down, and we get nowhere. All the legal loopholes are dangerous and pointless, in addition to undermining the spirit of the treaty. If we had some dignity and some leadership, we would be ensuring that Canada’s humanitarian reputation is not tarnished by actions like these.

We have to have some dignity and a right to criticize regimes that violate human rights. These days, for example, the Syrian army is dropping fuel barrels packed with explosives and shrapnel on civilians. That bears a strange resemblance to a cluster bomb, since civilians die when they explode. If we want to be in a position to criticize actions like those, we have to set an example and we have to demonstrate leadership. If we continue in this way, then instead of sewing Canadian flags on their backpacks, the Americans are going to be sewing Norwegian flags.

It is all very well to want to protect our troops from prosecution, but that should not prevent us from asking ourselves moral questions about the legitimacy of using weapons of this kind. If we accommodate those who use them, we become their accomplices and we must then bear that shame.

It would be very simple to remove clause 11. I prefer to deal with the difficulty of finding legal language rather than deal with the moral difficulty of indirectly endorsing the use of this kind of weapon.

It is important that Canadians know that the reason we want to debate this is that we have some very serious questions and we want them to know what the government is dragging them into. As soon as the bill has been passed and this is ratified, critical international voices are going to discover that we have the weakest law of all the signatory countries. We are going to make a reputation for ourselves like the one we had with the arms trade treaty and in all the other situations where we have a weak position and make compromises without assessing the consequences.

I am not a moralizer, but I think that ultimately, we reach a point where we really have to look at our decisions head-on and see whether we are not on the wrong track and violating all our principles and the principles of the Canadians we represent.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I caught the last couple of minutes of my colleague's input. I would like to ask him one simple question. It would be easy to be idealistic if we did not have to face the reality of the world that we live in.

Other than between 1812-15, pretty much every military engagement that we have entered into, we have entered into with the United States of America as an ally for all of the reasons that we understand. Is the member suggesting that if the U.S. continues to have cluster munitions in its inventory, because it has to face some realities that we do not have to face, we never, ever operate in any military operation with the United States of America?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canada is a big country with a well-equipped army. We play an important role. Our allies, like the Americans, need our involvement. We should still set our conditions. Although I see my colleague laughing on the other side, I would say we should be able to impose certain conditions to secure our presence, unless we are so insignificant that we have absolutely nothing to say and nothing to decide. That would be rather a shame.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, along the same lines, I would like my colleague to explain why Canada often hesitates to make decisions regarding humanitarian causes. Canada has a long history of peacekeeping missions and particularly leadership when it comes to cluster munitions and landmines. Why ruin that by keeping clause 11, which would cause Canadian soldiers to be involved in the use of these weapons against the wishes of most Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the word that starts with “hyp” because apparently that is not parliamentary.

In my opinion, someone is crossing his fingers behind his back when he is talking, unless those who are better informed than we are have a hidden agenda or have discussed the matter with people who are more influential than us. That is really appalling. We should have more of a say in the investments that the government makes in our army, and we should have a say when the government does business with our allies.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to follow up on the last question and the comment.

In fact, the legislation says exactly the opposite of what was suggested. “We will not use; we do not possess; we are destroying what we have; we will not use, ever, cluster munitions.” That is part of the legislation.

Going back to the comments and response to my previous question, yes, we are small. We are not insignificant, but we are very small when it comes to our power versus the United States versus the Brits versus allies in general. We will never do an operation of that importance by ourselves. We are just not that powerful. We will always be operating with allies. Most importantly, and pretty much always, we will always be operating with the Americans.

I would like to ask my colleague, again, given the inevitability of the fact that we will be operating with the Americans, given the fact that we will never use or possess cluster munitions, is the member suggesting that because of that we should refuse to operate with the Americans?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in times of war, such as the war in Afghanistan, we should be able to tell our allies that we do not want these types of weapons on the battlefield because they will kill our soldiers and they will continue to kill civilians for years afterward.

In any case, we should at least have the courage to speak out against the use of these weapons.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to stand in the House to join my colleagues in debating the bill. I am deeply troubled that the government moved to limit debate on the bill. I am deeply troubled that apart from some questions which have been useful, I am not seeing colleagues in the Conservative Party rising to speak to this. If it is so wise to blow a cannon-ball through this treaty, then those members should stand and defend why they should do that.

Bill C-6 allegedly is an act to implement the convention on cluster munitions, but absent the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has brought forward, it will not be a bill to ban the use of cluster munitions. I will speak to that.

As my colleagues have spoken to, in order for Canada to ratify an international convention, the government of the day must table a bill in the House to enact legislation which brings into force in this country the terms of the treaty. As has been mentioned, Canada actually signed this treaty in 2008, and has waited until now to bring a final conclusion to the legislation that it has brought forward.

It is regrettable that our country, unlike Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and most of the European nations, has chosen not to take the treaty and enact it in legislation. Conservatives have taken this treaty and they have blown a cannon-ball through it. Canada has made a choice. Canada has signed the treaty, and it could choose not to ratify the treaty.

We heard questions today asking about our allies. The only ally that Conservatives have talked about is the United States. The whole point of the treaty was to deter nations from continuing to produce and use cluster munitions. What possible excuse can there be, if we only want to sort of ratify the treaty because we like to hang out with countries that do not respect the treaty? I do not think that is much of an incentive, to those who have not yet signed or ratified, to do the proper thing.

What is the significance of the treaty? What are cluster bombs? We have talked a lot about that tonight. These are explosive weapons that release many smaller submunitions. What is particularly dangerous about these—as if they do not cause enough damage and harm and maiming of families and children in the course of a war—is that, like landmines, many are left behind unexploded. Apparently they are very brightly coloured. They are very attractive to children, and a lot of children become maimed.

There has been a lot of talk in the House of late about how much we care about the plight of families suffering through this debacle in Syria. Let me share what has gone on in Syria with cluster bombs. The Syrian army, in Aleppo, has been issuing cluster bombs. What has happened is that a little boy of seven, shaking like a leaf, is seen moaning, with lacerations to his abdomen and legs. Three-year-old brother Nizar's body was ready for burial. Six-year old Mustafa Ali was lying in a bed with shrapnel injuries to his head, neck, and shoulders. There was a nine-year-old boy, with a nasty shrapnel injury to his left leg. These stories go on and on. This is what these weapons do. They are reprehensible.

To the credit of the nations around the world, at one time also including our nation, in 2008, they agreed to come together and draft and implement a convention through a treaty to ban the use of these reprehensible weapons.

Who supports its ratification in whole? The Secretary General of the United Nations supports it. He has expressed increasing concern about the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons, particularly when used in densely populated areas. The International Committee of the Red Cross has spoken out with great concern regarding the proposed legislation by the Canadian government to provide this major exemption. There are others: the British Action on Armed Violence, the International Network on Explosive Weapons, and Amnesty International.

Who has opposed the cluster bombs treaty? Well, it is the nations who have been producing or stockpiling significant quantities of cluster munitions. Those are the ones who are opposed to the convention and have not stepped forward either to sign or ratify it, and they include China, Russia, and the United States, reprehensibly.

In response to the remonstrations by the U.S., Canada and this group of nations have brought forward this treaty. However, now, Canada is introducing a loophole. A number of the parties that I have mentioned are concerned about Canada's move. They are suggesting that this move by Canada to include clause 11 may end up dismantling the effect of this treaty.

Who has criticized Bill C-6?

My colleagues have mentioned the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, and I will read what he has to say:

In a rare public attack, the former prime minister has lashed out at Canada for what he says is “a lack of commitment to an international treaty to ban deadly cluster munitions”. He has accused the current government of departing from Canada's traditional international leadership, and said, “Canada used to be in the forefront internationally in leading the world in good directions”. He then said that Canada cannot claim to have banned cluster bombs when it proposes to allow its military to help others to use the weapons.

That is a good point.

A second party who has spoken very strongly against Bill C-6 is one who should be very worrisome to Canadians, and that is Earl Turcotte.

Who is Earl Turcotte? He was the senior coordinator for the Conservative government's Department of Foreign Affairs in negotiating the treaty. He led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the convention. He resigned, given the Conservative government's position on this section, which essentially blows a cannon-ball through the convention.

I do not think I have time to mention all that Mr. Turcotte has said, but I can assure members that he has been very strong in his admonitions. He said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention..”. He has called for the bill to be strengthened. He said that, “The innocent victims of cluster munitions deserve nothing less”. I tend to agree.

The Red Cross has said clearly that if clause 11 stands in the bill at passage, it could have the effect of undermining the entire treaty. The Government of Norway has also very strongly spoken against the bill.

Concerns have been expressed that unless clause 11, this wide exemption, is removed from Bill C-6, it could put Canadian Forces at risk. Yet, when we read the details of the bill, it is very hard to argue that.

I look forward to one of those members standing in this place tonight and giving us their argument on why this provision is needed in the treaty. No other nation who has ratified the convention has included this provision. Canada did not argue for this provision to be in the treaty. It is highly unusual for a nation that has signed and shown intent to ratify, to add a provision that would essentially undermine the treaty itself.

The treaty already allows for interoperability, so why do we need this additional provision? Surely it should be the obligation of our country, when we get into the fields of war, to look very closely at what our partners in those activities are doing.

What could be an appropriate action by Canada? Well, it would be the same as all of the others who have ratified this convention, which is to stand up and say that one shall not use cluster munitions.

The case that Canadian Forces could be at risk simply by the fact that they go into the field of war with a country such as the United States that still has a stockpile of the munitions, I do not believe is a sound argument. I have yet to see that argument.

If we are in the field of war with a country and it is using those cluster bombs, then shame on us. We should not be participating in that activity. We have signed on to this treaty, and we are professing that we are going to ratify it, which is supposed to do away with the use of these cluster bombs.

I fully support the NDP amendments, which would strike clause 11. That would then bring Canada in line with all of the other reputable nations of the world that have signed and ratified the treaty.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona with interest. She is right. We do hang out with the Americans a lot, for all kinds of historical and practical reasons. We hung out with them from 1916 to 1918, from 1941 to 1945, 1950 to 1953, 1991 to 1999, 2002 to 2014, and 2011. I suspect that we will hang out with them again tomorrow somewhere.

We provide a lot of capability, as was mentioned previously, but we do not provide anywhere near the numbers that the Americans provide, of course.

My colleague talked about putting Canadians at risk. She was looking for an example, and I will relay one that I believe I used the last time we addressed this issue. That is the example of a white schoolhouse in Panjwaii, where Canadians were pinned down and were calling for air support. They had no idea where the air support was coming from. In fact, it came from the Americans. It could have come from the British or from the Dutch. It could have come from a lot of people.

They were not going to sit there on the ground and worry about what that F-16 or A-10 was carrying. They were worried about saving their butts because they were getting the stuff beaten out of them by the Taliban. They would not sit there, high and mighty, and say they did not want help from the F-16s or the A-10s because they might be carrying cluster munitions. They did not, but they might have, because the U.S. had not ratified the treaty.

The member is looking for examples of where we have put Canadians at risk by following what the NDP is proposing. I would suggest that this is just one example, and it is a real world example. It actually happened, and it is one of many examples.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am reading clause 11, and I am having a very difficult time following the argument that the hon. member has raised. I know that he spent a good time in the military, and we highly respect the contribution that he made to the country.

However, we have to remember what clause 11 says. It would exempt our forces or officers from liability for directing or authorizing an activity using, possessing, importing, or exporting cluster munitions. By simply being in the field when people are at risk and another nation is coming in to assist them, I do not see where we have directed or authorized the use of cluster munitions. If we had, that is the whole point of the treaty, to prohibit actions expressly authorizing or requesting the use of cluster munitions.

That is completely contrary to clause 6, which says that we are prohibited from expressly requesting the use of cluster munitions, or acquiring or possessing cluster munitions. Clauses 6 and 11 just cannot be read together. It is a pointless exercise. We may as well not be ratifying the treaty, if we go ahead with the bill as tabled.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives in the House tonight have been asking about the U.S. and whether we are going to ignore them if they need our help. They are forgetting to mention that we are also aligning ourselves with China, a very communist country, and Russia, a former communist country, which is very undemocratic. The proof there is in Ukraine.

There are 113 countries that have signed on to this convention, and 84 that have ratified it. If these countries need our help because they have ratified this agreement, are we going to refuse to help them?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I always appreciate his contributions in this place.

There is something even more important than what we do about the bad states around the world that are not joining the rest of the states that want to move toward a better world. My recollection is that when we were in Afghanistan, we were also partnering with countries such as the U.K. We were partnering with a lot of European nations. Why do we keep singling out one nation, the United States? The rest of the world is trying to get the United States and all of the other rogue nations to stop using cluster bombs.

It may be time for Canada to stand up and say we are going to take our forces to war to defend another nations and bring them democracy; however, when we join with them, we will not be using cluster bombs. To me, it is that simple.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I am always pleased to speak about foreign affairs issues.

As federal legislators, we often deal with issues that do not always have a direct impact on our constituents. Like many of my colleagues, I am sure, I have the honour of representing a riding where people are very concerned about what is happening with regard to different issues and the way Canada works on the international stage. Even though these issues do not affect them directly, the reputation that Canada has and the way we work are still very important to them. That is the main reason why I am rising today.

I have been listening to this evening's debate, and one of the arguments the Conservative government is using is that it cannot guarantee that the Americans will not use cluster munitions given that they have not signed on to this convention. That is not the issue. To say that we could never stop them—and that there is therefore no problem having a bill ratify a convention, even if the bill is full of flaws that will undermine that same convention—is to miss the point.

The point is to show leadership on the world stage. That is, or I should say was—past tense—Canada's reputation on the world stage. Unfortunately, that is a problem with the Conservative government. We are hearing that again in the arguments this evening. They are saying that it is idealistic and there is nothing they can do about it. That is an excuse for not seeing things through and having a more complete bill that would be supported by the various stakeholders we heard in committee.

There is a term for that in international relations. It is called the tragedy of the commons. The example often used to illustrate the tragedy of the commons in international relations is the environment. If we look at environmental issues, when the different players negotiate on the world stage, they often say that they do not want to make efforts to reduce greenhouse gases because developing countries such as China, for example, will not adhere to the same restrictions that we do and this will put us at a competitive disadvantage. At the end of the day, if we always fall back on those arguments, then that is the tragedy of the commons. In other words, no one does anything.

That is precisely the problem with this bill and with the Conservative government's arguments. The United States is a big and powerful country and we are allies. No one is saying that we will stop working with the U.S. when the government ratifies the convention and working sometimes with the U.S. in military interventions. That being said, that does not stop us from seeing things through and truly supporting what is in the convention with a more complete bill.

I will elaborate a bit for those who may not have followed the entire debate. We are talking about the famous clause 11, which has come up often in the debate. A number of my colleagues have talked about it. Clause 11 would allow Canadian soldiers to use these munitions even though we signed the convention on cluster munitions. If our soldiers were on a mission with countries that have not ratified the convention, we would refer to the concept of interoperability.

It was at Canada's insistence that this concept was included in the convention despite opposition from several countries that participated in the negotiations. This concept is a little strange and very contradictory. One of my colleagues talked about contradiction earlier.This is an extremely important term. In principle, Canada sits around a table and says that it agrees with principles and that it wants to ratify a convention. Then the government comes back to the House of Commons with a bill that puts all this in place and makes our laws conform to the undertakings of this international agreement. However, we cannot really support these principles.

If we took this matter seriously, the bill would instead state that if we were to participate in a military mission with allies such as the Americans, who continue to use these weapons, the Americans could do whatever they wanted, but we would prohibit the use of these weapons by Canadian soldiers. In that way, we would fully honour the principles set out in this convention.

Unfortunately, that is not what this bill proposes, and that is what we are speaking out against. The members opposite do not seem to understand that.

For example, I have listened to my colleague from Ottawa Centre ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs many questions about the arms trade treaty, among other things. The minister talks about not wanting to punish so-called law-abiding citizens, as though we were debating the long gun registry when we are talking about an international treaty. It is really interesting, because we realize that the government's commitment to our obligations is dwindling, and this bill is an unfortunate example of that.

I listened to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta talk about a time when Americans felt safe and comfortable when they put a Canadian flag on their backpack and travelled in certain regions and countries because of the respect the international community had for Canada. I found that interesting.

All is not lost, but I dare say we can do better. That is what we are asking of the government today, as we did in committee. This afternoon the minister repeatedly said that an amendment had been accepted; however, the basic issue has not been corrected. That is why we cannot support this bill.

That is very disappointing because Canada built a reputation for itself through hard work and compromise, and that reputation brought together various countries that were not always on the same wavelength. Now, instead of continuing with that same work, Canada is taking a very strong stand. That is important, but the problem is that Canada is not standing firm on the right things. We need to take a firm stand by showing leadership and initiative, not by being closed-minded.

In other words, the Conservatives show up in the House, raise their hands and say this is too idealistic. I heard the hon. member for Edmonton Centre say that it is like Alice in Wonderland. For many Canadians—in fact, the vast majority—showing leadership on the international stage is not idealistic; it is part of our Canadian identity.

Showing leadership means leading by example. Sometimes, that means making difficult decisions and working with allies who do not work the way we do. It also means, as my colleague said, that we may sometimes have to put some of our soldiers in a difficult position, knowing that their American counterparts are using weapons we prohibit.

However, I think that the people we represent, the international community and our military personnel would be very proud to see us take a firm stand and deliver on the commitments made during negotiations with other countries.

To bring this full circle, I would like to come back to the idea of the tragedy of the commons, or waiting for others to act, which unfortunately is far too often the case on the international stage. Countries are often too afraid to be at the forefront, making difficult decisions and what could be seen as forward-thinking commitments. That is not how Canada acted in the past, and that is not how it should be acting today.

We hope that the government will come to its senses as a result of the speeches that have been made today. When we debated this bill after it was introduced, the media and stakeholders like the Red Cross raised the same concerns as the NDP.

It has to be serious, because the Red Cross generally stays out of this kind of political debate. That speaks volumes.

I know that my time is up, but I think that I got our idea across. I hope that this will enlighten some government members.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are having too much fun here tonight, in a manner.

This is not about backpacking around Europe with a flag on one's back. I think the people we represent would not be very proud if we allowed Canadian soldiers to die on the battlefield because we refused help from an ally because we did not like something they were doing. I know how my constituents would feel about that and how the people I know in uniform would feel about that.

I want to take my colleague up on something he said. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems to me that he was suggesting that somehow the way Bill C-6 is written is permitting Canadians to use cluster munitions. Of course, it is exactly the opposite. We do not use, possess, store, or permit the use by Canadian Forces of cluster munitions ever, anywhere, any time. I would like him to clarify that. I hope he did not suggest that. If he did, I would ask him to clarify that, because it is simply not the case.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As one of my colleagues just pointed out, the amendment fixed the problem and prevents the use of cluster munitions.

In the original version of the bill, cluster munitions were allowed during joint operations with countries that had not ratified the convention. The error was fixed and I acknowledge that. I misspoke. I was going back in time. I had the chance to speak to this bill at the beginning of the debate a few months ago.

That said, I would like to answer my colleague's question about endangering Canadian soldiers. That is not at all the case. It is important to note that what we want is to set an example by fixing the flaws in this bill to show that Canada does not accept this. We are not telling other countries what they should do. We are simply trying to show them the right thing to do. Setting an example in the world does not put anyone in danger.