House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was munitions.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative members in this House are not debating tonight, we are certainly getting a lot of points made repeatedly, such as those made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.
For my friend from London—Fanshawe, the claim has been made repeatedly in debate this evening that the exact language was used in the anti-landmines law as is used in Bill C-6. That is not correct.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That is what I heard, Mr. Speaker. If the member for Edmonton Centre could wait a moment, I have heard him say repeatedly in this House that the same language was used.
In fact, the language is very different. The language that is used in the anti-land mine convention and the law that was passed by this House, says the following:
participation in operations, exercises or other military activities with the armed forces of a state that is not a party to the Convention that engage in an activity prohibited under the subsection...if that participation does not amount to active assistance in that prohibited activity.
The question would be, if I were able to put a question to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, is that if the same language were good enough for the anti-land mine convention, why did we not use that language in the cluster munitions law?
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I can speculate about why the change is here, but I am afraid the government has to answer for that. Unfortunately, it has refused to do so. It is not putting up speakers; it is not explaining its rationale.
All I can say, and all I can see, is the advice from experts, who are very concerned about the lack of solid and worthwhile language in Bill C-6.
We can change this. We can fix this. It is not too late. We can go back and work through the legislation and make it what it needs to be, for all of our sakes.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to join my voice to those of my official opposition colleagues.
We are opposed to Bill C-6 under its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. That is unfortunate. We proposed amendments to the bill at committee stage, but, true to form, the Conservatives allowed just one small change. We are again trying to amend the bill at report stage, but if the government does not agree to further improve the content, then we will have no choice but to oppose it.
In November 2013, the NDP called on the government to amend Bill C-6. According to lawyers, representatives of other countries and groups from civil society, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the new legislation would seriously hinder the implementation of the treaty. The Conservatives' bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions is largely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world. It undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created. These inhumane and cruel weapons must be banned. The Canadian legislation allows Canadian soldiers to continue to use these cluster munitions. It is unbelievable.
Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to develop a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Landmines. This treaty was very successful and we are very proud of it. I am talking about the treaty to ban landmines. We built on that treaty in order to rid the world of the horrific weapons known as cluster munitions. The convention was signed by 118 countries, which is significant since that represents more than three-quarters of the UN member states. A total of 84 countries ratified it. When the Dublin process and Oslo process negotiations were complete, we implemented a convention that was important in terms of disarmament and ridding the world of these horrific munitions.
The NDP fully supported the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. This bill undermines the convention it is supposed to implement. That is unfortunate. We oppose this bill as it now stands. In committee, we worked hard to improve it with civil society groups. Even if the amendment the Conservatives allowed is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support this bill. At this stage, the best thing to do would be to completely remove clause 11 from the bill, which is what we are proposing.
I would like to quote the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In their opinion, clause 11 would permit:
...activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.
Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been criticized by many experts and those who strongly believe in ridding the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other provisions. Clause 11 allows the 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 participate in joint operations with them while they were using those particular weapons.
This bill has a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre when one of our allies is using cluster munitions. That is unacceptable
At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and were able to convince it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.
Unfortunately, there remain flaws in the bill. If they are not corrected, Canada will only be able to superficially honour its commitment to ban cluster munitions. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention internationally, in that the withdrawal options and exemptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.
Canada should show more leadership and meet its commitments. The government has shown its lack of vision in other matters as well. In this regard, I will quote Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian prime minister:
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.
I would like to remind the House that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians, innocent people, mostly children. That is why the world wanted to ban these munitions. Why is the government trying to destroy these efforts?
Moreover, in 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of landmines, cluster munitions, and other explosive devices. Children and adults were maimed and killed by these weapons. We have wanted to get rid of cluster munitions for a long time.
The bill was also condemned by Earl Turcotte, the head of the DFAIT delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned a few years later in protest against the Conservative government's watered-down version of the convention. Mr. Turcotte said that the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention on cluster munitions to date.
Why is the government refusing to hear what the experts have to say? It is not the first time we have seen that. It is like déjà vu. On several key issues, the government turns a deaf ear. In this case, though, human lives are at stake, which is why I feel that the government should work constructively to amend the bill.
In an open letter published last year, Mr. Turcotte stated that the bill betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated the treaty in good faith. I want to conclude by quoting from an article by Marc Thibodeau in La Presse on June 15, 2013:
After playing a leading role in the fight against landmines, Canada is now being chastised for not fulfilling its commitments in the current campaign to get rid of cluster munitions.
In the same article, Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, says that there are no logical reasons to explain why Ottawa would act this way. He thinks that “the situation is tarnishing Canada's reputation as a leader on humanitarian issues”.
He really gets at the heart of what is becoming a very palpable reality: Canada's international reputation. We have to stop playing and start acting. We need to take a leadership role so that innocent people are no longer killed. We have a job to do. We can resolve this right now. We are here until midnight and we are trying to use this time to have a proper debate.
As was mentioned earlier, we are the only party taking part in tonight's debate. There is still time to amend the bill and delete clause 11. I am confident that we will be able to do something good with this bill.
Jean-François Larose NDP Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to clear something up.
I think there was a translation problem earlier when I talked about Bosnia. I never said that we used cluster munitions. What I said was that when officers came back from Bosnia and talked about their experience over there, none of them was thrilled about the prospect of using cluster munitions.
Does my hon. colleague think that people who join the Canadian Armed Forces are comfortable with the idea of using weapons that could kill civilians and children 5, 10 or 20 years after their mission in that country is over? Does she think that officers and sergeants would be interested in using such weapons?
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and comments. This bill is really important, and Canada can take the lead on this issue.
It is hard to believe that six years after signing this treaty, we are here until midnight with almost no one else around, since the official opposition is the only party taking part in tonight's debate. We have to remember that lives are at stake. The victims are often very vulnerable people, civilians and mostly children. As a mother, I feel we can do a lot to improve this bill. It is not too late. However, we seem to be dealing with a rather thick-headed government that is not willing to acknowledge that it may have erred and that we can do better.
I am no expert in cluster munitions, but after reading the documentation and following the recent debates here in the House and in committee, I know that we can truly improve on the bill by deleting clause 11, and we would be saving lives.
Costas Menegakis ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches this evening from NDP members. One thing that strikingly is becoming more and more obvious is how repetitive the speeches are. I am of the impression that they have the exact same speech in the back on their computers and they change a few words, use the thesaurus and repeat the same things over and over.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
What is interesting to note at this point, Mr. Speaker, is to hear the members opposite heckling, and boy have they been heckling tonight. Some of the words that have come out of their mouths have been totally unbelievable.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she has actually read the bill or did she just take the speech from the back and bring it up to the front and read it again? The words that she uttered in her speech, Mr. Speaker, are almost identical to speeches we have heard from every member of the NDP who has spoken this evening. We all know the heckling we hear is coming from the NDP.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. The time is limited. I will send the question over to the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member has been listening to our speeches. I hope he will take into consideration some of what we have said because it is important. I am sad that he finds it is repetitive. He is frustrated by the fact that we are stating the facts. If he is so frustrated, then, why does he not get on his feet and speak to the bill. He still has time. You could give a 10-minute speech like I just did. You have the right to do it.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. We are out of time for this intervention. It is rather illustrative of the fact as to why our conventions compel members to direct their comments to the Chair. This helps the conversation to be less personal and invariably lessens the possibility of disorder in the House.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-6.
This is a situation we know all too well in Canada. In order for an international treaty to be enshrined in Canadian law, an implementation act is required, and that is what we have before us tonight.
The issue with countries operating under the dualist model is that the implementation act could be undermined by weaknesses, omissions or even ill will. Unfortunately, we have heard time and time again that this bill is undermined by ill will. The government is deliberately misusing the process whereby international rules are incorporated into Canadian law.
We have already debated this bill, since the Senate introduced a previous version. At the time, the NDP had some concerns about the fact that it originated in the other place. However, I will refrain from launching into a tirade against the legitimacy of legislation that originates in the red chamber.
At first glance, it seems to me that every effort made by the government in terms of international relations tends to turn sour. It seems that the Conservatives could not care less about our relations with the international community.
To hell with other countries if they do not think much of Canada. Before the Conservatives start bragging again about their wide-ranging trade policies, they should ask themselves if other countries will want to trade with a country that behaves in such a cavalier and arrogant way.
Bill C-6 is very important. Unfortunately, the government waited too long before introducing a bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions.
I am not the only one who sees the major flaws in this bill. As it is, without any amendment, the bill would render Canada's signature on the convention null and void, simply because our law would not faithfully reflect the content of this treaty. We would clearly be renouncing our international obligations in front of the whole world.
The international community is aware of the efforts made by countries to enforce international laws and now sees Canada as a country that does not do the bare minimum. Clearly, this bill must be amended in order to make sure that it is in agreement with the spirit and the letter of the convention.
I would like to talk about the convention on cluster munitions, a treaty that has been signed by 118 countries—three-quarters of the UN member states—and ratified by 84 countries. The Ottawa treaty to ban landmines as well as the Dublin and Oslo negotiation processes laid the groundwork for a treaty such as this one to put an end to the horror of cluster munitions.
These weapons are extremely difficult to detect and disarm. They are tiny and often look like small objects that have been left behind in conflict zones. We can imagine the many victims, both adults and children, who survive but end up suffering and living with serious injuries caused by these weapons. It is disgusting to think that people could have conceived or produced these ghastly weapons, that companies could have distributed and sold them, and that countries could have authorized and ordered their use. The fact that countries continue to support their use is even worse.
Fortunately, the international community is trying to put an end to inhumanity. There have been a lot of consultations. The work done at the United Nations bodies in Geneva and Vienna is absolutely crucial and important. We mentioned the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines. The work done every year as part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is also invaluable, and Canada has always played an important role in the work of these organizations.
I mention this because I think it is very important to remember that Canada used to be an undisputed leader on these issues, and today, as I will point out later, a number of international experts are looking at Canada and wondering what is going on with us. Where is the logic behind these absolutely ridiculous policies? Once again, I do not understand the government's logic.
Let us get back to the subject of this bill. Cluster munitions were used for the first time during the Second World War. They were used until recently in countries like Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq. These weapons indiscriminately strike all those who happen to be in their range. The non-explosion rate of these munitions makes them particularly dangerous and horrifying. Thirty per cent of all cluster munitions do not explode when they hit the ground. Therefore, they could explode whenever a civilian gets near them, even years or decades later.
Civilians make up 98% of the victims of these weapons, and 40% of the civilian victims are children. Obviously, this is shocking and appalling. We are not talking here about injuries that last a lifetime; we are not talking about the material losses often inflicted on the poorest families that are already ravaged by war; we are not talking about the destruction of homes or the contamination of land used for agriculture; we are talking about the destruction of families, countries, economies and human lives.
In 2008, Canada signed the convention on cluster munitions. It was only natural to do so, given the fact we have always been in favour of disarmament and of monitoring the use of conventional weapons and considering the humanitarian commitment behind our signature internationally, that is, up until now.
At that point, Canada made a commitment not to develop, produce, acquire, sell, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. It also made a commitment to destroy all cluster munitions in its possession within eight years.
By signing the 2008 convention, Canada also agreed to help victims of cluster munitions and support other signatories to the treaty. It was also to take all the necessary legislative measures to have the text adopted in its domestic law. That is what we expected the bill to do.
The NDP rejoiced when Canada became a party to the convention. However, we see tonight, with much sadness and puzzlement, that the government is choosing to shirk its responsibilities under the treaty.
It is choosing to act that way even though we offered to work with the government and suggest amendments, among other things, so that Canada could implement the convention effectively, as it promised to do in 2008.
Becoming a signatory to a convention is only the first step. Once an agreement has been reached and the convention has been signed, it needs to be implemented, which requires a bill like this one.
The bill we have before us, however, does not meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-6 is roundly criticized by experts as well as by those who believe that children and civilians should not be exposed to such weaponry.
Clause 11 allows Canadian soldiers to engage in operations where cluster munitions are used. We were fully compliant in the case of the Ottawa convention, which prohibits Canadian soldiers from being in theatre with non-signatory states. We were forbidden from participating in joint operations with states that use those weapons. Today, Canada is reversing its position in front of the whole world and agreeing to participate in operations in which cluster munitions are used. The decision is as inexplicable as it is worrisome.
Legitimizing the use of these weapons and the states that use them goes against both the spirit and the letter of the convention. Clause 11 authorizes Canada and a state that is not a party to the convention to use, acquire, possess, import or export cluster munitions. This flies in the face of the convention. The government's intentions are unequivocal, and it has made no attempt to obscure them. It is trying to circumvent a treaty that bans the use of some of the weapons most lethal to civilians around the world.
If we are to play a vital, valued role in promoting international peace, we need to make sure that this treaty meets international requirements when it is enshrined in Canadian law. That role was a Canadian tradition that many Quebeckers were proud to be part of, whether as diplomats or statesmen.
The convention clearly requires that we completely rid ourselves of these weapons and refrain from using them if we are in a conflict zone or theatre of operations where they are being used. That is the commitment we made when we signed this agreement. It is there in black and white.
We can say that we do not have these weapons and that we will destroy them, but as long as we do not embrace this particular notion of not using them at all, we are not meeting our international obligations under this convention.
Numerous people have said as much. The Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross said that clause 11 was not consistent with the purpose and the object of the convention. To quote them:
[It] would permit activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.
The parliamentary committee also heard from former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who is an international disarmament expert:
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.
Our amendments were specifically designed to change this bill so that it would be in line with such extremely important opinions and comply with international law.
Instead, the Conservatives are hurting Canada's reputation. It is shocking and shameful. I urge them to change their strategy, if only to preserve our international reputation.
Do they care about that?
Chris Alexander ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, Canada was among the foremost countries advocating a ban on the use of gas on battlefields, while Syria used it last year.
Canada was at the forefront of nuclear disarmament efforts. Canada does not have nuclear weapons, but these weapons still exist. Canada championed the ban on landmines, but these mines still exist.
Is the member across the way telling us that banning cluster munitions will not be a major step forward in strengthening international security and protecting civilians caught in conflicts?
Does the member believe in our alliances at all? Does he believe that we must remain an important ally among NATO countries? Does he think that the United States must remain our ally, yes or no?
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank my colleague for his question. Of course, I am certainly not as knowledgeable as he is about international issues. I can tell you right off the bat that we can certainly see that this—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order.
It is important that all members direct their comments to the Speaker.
The member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher still has the floor.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would ask those who have the nerve to grunt like a one-eyed monster to address the Speaker from time to time.
I was trying to provide an intelligent answer to an intelligent question. Essentially, what I was trying to say is that there are people on that team who have their brains in the right place, but unfortunately there are many others who have made their intention clear. My mother always said that what counts is intentions. When I hear people simply hammering the idea that Canada is not a pacifist country, then it is clear to see what their intentions are. I rest my case.
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.
As we have been saying since the beginning of the debates on Bill C-6, it is clear that this situation is significantly tarnishing Canada's international reputation.
It is like someone giving their word and not keeping it. That is what we are doing if you consider clause 11 of Bill C-6. I must say that I am overcome by the fact that the government is minimizing the impact of these cluster munitions, which, whether the government likes it or not, kill children, women and civilians who have nothing to do with any army or with people involved in the military.
That is what we are talking about this evening. This truly goes to show that when it comes to a convention, applying it in a way that is inconsistent with what we signed on to, makes no sense.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for her informed comments.
We have to speak with a view to representing our constituents as much as possible. I am sure that everyone here was elected by people who are generally satisfied with their representation. Accordingly, I expect there to be a real parliamentary debate. It is indeed a shame to see that Canada's international reputation does not seem to matter much to the people across the way, or certainly not enough for them to take the floor and defend this bill.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not shocked and dismayed, because the Conservatives behave this way almost all the time.
The first thing I want to say is, is this really the single, most important thing that is facing Canada right now? The government decides that issues of trade with Panama, with Honduras, with Colombia are the most important thing and therefore we need to limit debate so we cannot talk about it any longer.
The Conservatives have done the same thing with the bill. They have decided that we are not going to talk about this any more. They are done talking. In fact, members opposite are done talking completely. They have decided that their constituents' voices have now been heard by the bill, and that all of the members opposite, all of their constituents, how many of them voted for them, are now in possession of the complete truth, the facts, and everything else about the bill and there is no need to express their views. There is no need for those members opposite to express the wishes of their constituents, because the bill does that for them. Therefore they do not need to talk about what their constituents might be saying to them. I think their constituents might be saying a lot. They certainly are to me.
Canada is a peaceful country. It always has been. When war happens and sometimes in faraway places, Canada responds to war efforts by other countries that require our assistance, World War I, World War II, Korea. We have been, regrettably, in Afghanistan. There were a number of Canadians soldiers who did not come back alive. In each of those circumstances, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, we were doing something for the greater good.
We are now suggesting, through kind of a sideways glance and loophole in a bill, that it is okay to kill and maim children, women, and other civilians who have no part in a war, that it is okay by our inaction on the bill, to build weapons and to use them, not by Canada, but by our allies, in theatres of war. Canadians can join in this war, Canadian soldiers can be part, wherever this war takes place. Our allies cannot expect Canada to tell them we are not going unless they stop using these particular weapons.
That is what we on this side of the House want to have happen. That is what we on this side of the House believe that my constituents want Canada to stand for. We want Canada to stand for the creation of a peaceful planet, not one where women and children have to fear that bombs will drop on them from the sky, and tiny bombs at that, bombs that are not designed as a weapon of war, but as a weapon of destruction of civilians.
The U.S. has become really good with their little drones that can go out and pick off an individual who happens to be a leader in another country. Maybe that is where weapons of war are going, to the individual hit, but this cluster munition is not a weapon of war. It is a weapon of destroying as many lives as it can. We might as well say that biological weapons are okay or chemical weapons are okay, as long as it is somebody else using them. As long as we are just beside them and somebody else is using them, then it is okay to use them. We will participate. We will join in with allies who use these things.
I do not think my constituents want me to take that position. I do not believe that this side of the House can support a bill that allows that to take place. It does not do everything, including refusing to stand alongside a country, even if we agree with the fight, if they intend to use these, if they have not signed this treaty.
We have, over the past century probably, discovered ways to kill people that we did not know of before, and we have used them in war. We are a pretty sophisticated species, we human beings. We have decided to put rules around war that limit the destruction to those involved in the war. Killing soldiers is okay. Killing children is not.
I am not going to get into a philosophical debate about whether war is good, bad, or indifferent, but we have developed a number of treaties and conventions over the past century or so that limit damage to civilians secondary to the cause of the war itself. There is a whole great long list of them.
There is the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that is designed to prevent one side from developing ways of stopping nuclear weapons from raining down on them, the Arms Trade Treaty that Canada refused to sign, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which is the one we are talking about now.
There is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the International Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Mine Ban Treaty, otherwise known as the Ottawa treaty, because Canada had a lot to do with developing that treaty and actually hosted the convention. We saw land mines as being such a cruel and unusual form of conducting a war that we wanted the rest of the world to agree that land mines should be banned.
There is the Missile Technology Control Regime, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, the Outer Space Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. There are about 15 more that have to do with nuclear weapons, which have been used on this planet, much to the shame of some of the scientists who discovered what they had developed.
We on this side of the House believe, as I think many in the rest of the world do, that if there are wars, we should limit the damage by those wars. Most wars nowadays are over oil, but most wars are over somebody's decision about where a boundary should be, as is going on currently in the Ukraine, where one country has decided to quietly feed a bunch of weapons to another group of people who want to take a piece of that country and move the boundary. War should not include the kinds of weapons that destroy lives without regard for the fact of whether a person is wearing a uniform or not. We on this side of the House believe that those kinds of weapons do not belong in anything that Canada does with its soldiers, period, end of story.
There is a personal message from my side of the House. My wife's cousin, who is a medical professional in Edmonton, has had first-hand experience with the effects of these munitions in third world countries. His job is to build prosthetics. He has spent several years of his life on the other side of the planet teaching doctors and others how to build prosthetics for children and how to keep growing those prosthetics as the children grow. It is a very sad, awful thing to have to do, but that is the effect of weapons like this. The effect is that children grow up without limbs and children need prosthetics in countries that do not have a lot of money to begin with. Are we sending prosthetics to these countries? No. Are we accepting refugees from these countries? Sometimes, but it is very difficult to get a straight answer out of the current minister on how many.
In general, we are glad that the Conservatives have actually agreed to ratify this treaty, but we hope that they would agree with us to remove the giant loopholes that we could drive a tank through and agree that our job should be to limit, not be a party to, the use of these weapons.
