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.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister is always entertaining in his responses, but I know he realizes the importance of the legislation on which we are debating time allocation.
I have also heard him say that there is only one component of the bill on which we have a disagreement. Is he willing to remove clause 11 from the bill so we can proceed expeditiously with the legislation?
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put members of the Canadian Armed Forces at risk should they have some far away link to the use of these horrible weapons. The opposition has said that is not an issue, that it is not a problem and that we should not worry about it, but those of us in government have to worry about it. We have a responsibility to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces to ensure they are not put in harm's way in an international judicial proceeding.
We consulted with the Chief of the Defence Staff. We consulted with representatives of the Canadian Armed Forces to get their best advice, to find out their practical operations on the ground. They were clear that they had never used these weapons, and they never would.
We have to follow one aspect of the convention that was negotiated in the convention on interoperability so we do not put someone who is not using these evil weapons in harm's way.
With respect to clause 11, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, along with the members for Ottawa Centre and Westmount—Ville-Marie, pushed hard to get the bill tightened up a little so it would be a bit more clear. We were happy to work with the opposition to strengthen the bill.
I understand there is not agreement, but part of a debate is having a vote. We cannot debate bills forever. An important part of the debate is getting up and having a vote.
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
Bill C-6—Time Allocation MotionProhibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
Prohibiting Cluster Munitions ActGovernment Orders
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-6. As we know, this is the Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
I will start by giving some background on this bill, and I will then talk about our position.
Cluster munitions are weapons that release hundreds of explosive devices over a wide area within a very short time. They have a devastating effect on civilian populations that can last for years after a conflict ends.
I am going to present some facts and figures. To properly understand this issue, it is important to note that civilians suffer 98% of all injuries caused by cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are very small. They are often the size of a D battery or a tennis ball and they have a failure rate of 30%. Unexploded cluster munitions basically become anti-personnel mines. A single cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and usually disperses them over an area the size of two or three football fields. Up to 37 countries and territories could be affected by the cluster munitions that were used during armed conflicts. Nineteen countries used cluster munitions during combat operations. A total of 34 countries produce cluster munitions, although half of them have now stopped producing these types of weapons, in some cases as a result of the convention. Canada has never used or produced cluster munitions, and our country should be thanked for that.
The worldwide stock of cluster munitions represents about 4 billion bombs, and one-quarter of that stock is held by the United States.
In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other kinds of explosive weapons. Thousands of civilians have been injured or killed by these weapons, whose presence makes farming dangerous and impedes the reconstruction and development of vital infrastructure such as roads, railway lines and power plants.
It is often difficult and dangerous to remove unexploded cluster munitions after an armed conflict. Some countries have been dealing with this problem for decades.
Laos is the most cluster-bomb-contaminated country in the world, with tens of millions of unexploded cluster munitions.
Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to produce 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 land mines.
A total of 113 countries signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions and 84 ratified it. Despite strong opposition from the majority of participating states and non-governmental organizations, Canada succeeded in negotiating into the final text of the convention an article that explicitly allows for continued military interoperability with non-party states, article 21.
Bill C-6 does not contain just this clause on military co-operation with non-signatory countries. The main problem lies in clause 11, which proposes a very vague list of exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 allowed Canadian soldiers to use, acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions during combined operations involving a state not party to the Convention, and to request the use of a cluster munitions by another state's armed forces.
At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, the NDP backed Canadian and foreign civil organizations that called for the bill to be amended.
We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government.
We were able to convince the government to prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers. Unfortunately, this bill still has serious flaws. If they are not addressed, Canada's commitment to the fight against cluster munitions will be shallow.
In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could have international implications for the Convention because the opt-outs and exceptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries. The bill, in its current form, is the least restrictive of all bills passed by signatory states thus far. This is an embarrassing situation for Canada, which has always boasted about its humanitarian spirit. However, I am not surprised by the government's attitude, given its general attitude towards arms control.
I would like to remind members that this Conservative government refused to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed by every one of our NATO allies. It was also this government that relaxed restrictions on arms exports. That is shameful because under this government our international humanitarian reputation continues to be eroded. Instead of being a leader on the international scene, the Conservative government is only tarnishing Canada's reputation.
I would also like to explain the NDP's position on Bill C-6. To begin, the NDP fully supported a treaty banning cluster munitions. However, Bill C-6 undermines the convention instead of ensuring its implementation.
The Conservatives' bill to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions is widely recognized as being the weakest and worst bill in the world. It undermines the very spirit in which the convention was drafted. We are opposing the bill in its current form. My NDP colleagues who are part of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development worked hard with civil society groups to improve the bill. While the amendment that the Conservatives agreed to is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support the bill. At this stage, we are proposing that clause 11 be deleted in its entirety.
A number of stakeholders share our opinion and are also opposed to the Conservative government's Bill C-6. To begin, I would like to talk about Earl Turcotte, a former senior coordinator for mines action at DFAIT who was the head of the Canadian delegation to negotiate the convention. He stepped down in protest of the Conservative government's decision to introduce this very weak implementation bill. In a written statement intended for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, he said that the Conservative government had betrayed the trust of the other countries that signed the convention when it included the controversial clause in Bill C-6. Mr. Turcotte is fighting for more binding legislation. He said:
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.
Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, is also opposed to the bill. He 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 this weapon again, but from our reading this legislation falls well short of those standards.
Even the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which almost never issue position statements on international laws, opposed this bill.
For all of these reasons, if the government is not prepared to amend this bill, we will oppose it. Other countries want to see us show some leadership on this bill.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, as part of going through the hearings on this bill in committee, it was very troubling when Walt Natynczyk talked about how soldiers would call in strikes on themselves in certain situations. We also heard from the folks in committee that sometimes international agreements like this then have to be drafted into criminal law that would apply here in Canada. They had a number of challenges in that regard, when it came to things like transfer.
We believe, as the government, that we have met the conditions for the implementation of this with the amendment that we made, explicitly taking out the use in proposed paragraph 11(1)(c). That is very important. There was also an agreement in committee to ensure that there would be an annual report. Ultimately, we want to get all countries to stop using these cluster munitions.
As a caution to the member, does he not think it is important to ensure that we continue interoperability with one of our biggest allies, the U.S., but at the same time that our criminal law has to reflect Canadian law, and sometimes there cannot be a direct translation from the international context?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I and the NDP believe very strongly that it was not only proposed paragraph 11(1)(c) that had to be eliminated, but clause 11. We have to send a strong message as to the position of the Canadian government.
Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser also spoke out on this issue. He said:
It is a pity the current Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.
That is how other countries see us: a timid, inadequate and regressive country. It is up to us to make the laws in Canada. Clause 11 could have been struck. We will have to go to committee to see what the government is willing to do. If amendments are proposed, the government will have to accept them if it wants us to support this bill.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's comments in regard to international leadership. At one time, Canada did play a very strong leadership role. I would reflect on a former member of Parliament, Lloyd Axworthy, and the Ottawa agreement, which dealt with the land mines. The member made reference to that particular agreement in his opening remarks.
I would ask that the member provide further comment in terms of lost opportunity by Canada not playing the type of leadership role that it could. A good example of that was the land mines treaty and the positive impact that has had in general.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I remember that I made a speech on cluster bombs at the time that Axworthy and the Liberals were here, but they did not go far enough.
Today we have another bill in front of us, and we believe strongly that clause 11 has to be removed. We have to show that leadership. It was a start at that time, but now we have to continue. It is totally unacceptable to have those cluster bombs in some countries, when 98% of times it is civilians who are killed from them, and our own soldiers, when they go on the line. Our own soldiers are being killed by them. It is not just that, but innocent civilians are getting hurt.
It is time for the leadership of our country, our government, to do the right thing, and it has that opportunity.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, in 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and 112 were injured in Afghanistan because of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. These facts speak for themselves.
Can my colleague explain why the extreme danger posed by cluster munitions is grounds for the NDP's strong opposition to this bill?
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have never used cluster munitions and will never use them.
Our soldiers encounter these when they go to war. Some lose their lives. Civilians also lose their lives. This is not unusual during times of war, when soldiers are fighting for their country, but 98% of cluster munitions casualties are civilians.
These kinds of bombs do not take out a single person or building. They affect everyone in the area, including children, and these people all become victims.
We will oppose this bill because it does not do enough. We cannot accept it. If we were to accept it we would be accomplices of the Conservatives and we will not be accomplices. This bill does not do enough to protect the world by requiring that cluster munitions be destroyed and removed forever and by requiring that we not use them.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst shares my views. In my 10-minute speech, I will touch upon several very valid points that he mentioned, and I will to add some others.
Today we are debating Bill C-6 at report stage. This bill has a good chance of being passed by the Canadian Parliament, whether we like it or not. The Conservatives reminded us over and over in their speeches why they insist on moving forward. I concede that some amendments were adopted in committee—a sort of compromise—but the reality is that the amendments do not go far enough to reassure the members of the NDP.
I would recall the figure I mentioned to my colleague earlier. In 2006, 22 members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed and another 112 wounded in Afghanistan by anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions and other explosive weapons. Those figures terrify me.
Even if we in Canada decide not to use cluster munitions, we may become accomplices of less scrupulous countries. Some countries are less democratic, and certain elites govern and make decisions there. It terrifies me that some leaders and countries are deciding to go ahead with cluster munitions, because they exact a real human cost. I do not want to politicize this debate at all.
I wonder what would happen if, in the House of Commons today, we could hear from the families of those who did not return from combat because they were killed in situations of conflict by anti-personnel mines. I say anti-personnel mines because defective cluster munitions, weapons that lie undetonated in the ground, become anti-personnel mines.
Several of my NDP colleagues will be speaking from the heart this evening and saying how this bill raises serious concerns for them. We obviously hope the Conservative government will be reasonable and will want to amend the bill further, but I unfortunately doubt that will be the case.
It is my democratic right to represent my constituents. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I represent approximately 100,000 people. I would be lying if I said they had all contacted me in the past few days to give me their opinions. However, the people who elected me have the same social democratic values as I do.
My region, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, has one of the largest military bases in Canada, CFB Bagotville. It is home to 2 and 3 Wings, and it plays a very important strategic role in Canada. I am in favour of the Bagotville military base. I am in favour of the various missions that base carries out, both in our region and across our country. I am talking here about protecting our territory and providing assistance in exceptional situations.
I also agree that we should send Canadians, members of Canada’s armed forces, to disarm the world, in fact to protect us from a greater evil, if I may put it that way. We are aware that there are many countries, factions, opinions and ideologies on earth. Some parts of the world are in constant conflict.
I hope the Canadian government does not forget its peacekeeping role going forward. I think that is the best thing we can offer to countries currently in conflict and to future generations of Canadians.
Going back to cluster munitions, these weapons release hundreds of explosives over a large area in a very short period of time. They have devastating effects on civilians that can last for many years after a conflict is over.
Canada played an active part in the Oslo process, which led to an agreement designed to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process was triggered in order to take advantage of the success of the Ottawa convention on the prohibition of anti-personnel mines. Unfortunately, the United States, China and Russia did not take part in the process and are still stockpiling cluster munitions. That is a major concern.
Despite strong opposition by most signatory states and non-governmental organizations, Canada managed to include an article in the final text of the convention that expressly permits ongoing military interoperability with states that are not signatories to the convention. Interoperability essentially enables people to do their jobs in a military context.
Bill C-6 is not limited to that article on interoperability. The main problem is in clause 11, which provides a list of very vague exceptions. In its original form, clause 11 would have allowed Canadian soldiers to obtain, possess, use and transport cluster munitions in joint operations with another country that was not a signatory to the convention and to request their use by the armed forces of another country.
However, in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP offered its support to Canadian and foreign civilian organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely, publicly and directly with the government, and we managed to persuade it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.
I find it surprising that we had to bring forward an amendment to the bill. It seems to me that this amendment should have been included in the original bill, although I am pleased the government worked with the NDP on this.
Unfortunately, this bill still has other flaws. If they are not corrected, Canada’s implementation of its commitment to oppose cluster munitions will only be superficial. If Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention globally in that other countries would be able to invoke the withdrawal and exception options it contains as precedents. Believe me, we do not want that.
In its present form, the bill is less restrictive than all the laws passed to date by the countries that have ratified the convention. That is very disturbing.
The government has become somewhat timid, which does not surprise me when you consider its general reluctance to take action on arms control. For example, it refused to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty, unlike all our NATO allies, and also relaxed arms export restrictions.
What we want is clear. The NDP fully supported a treaty to ban cluster munitions. We stand firm on that and are very proud of it. However, this bill undermines the convention instead of ensuring that it is implemented. We also oppose the bill in its present form. At the committee stage, we worked hard to improve it together with groups from civil society. Even though the amendment approved by the Conservatives is an improvement, it is not enough for us to be able to support the bill.
In conclusion, I believe it would be best to delete clause 11 entirely. That is what we propose.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I would just like to talk to him about clause 11, because one of the comments of the previous speaker was that he would actually remove that.
There is interoperability, which we have to maintain, but also as a government we have to make sure that we are protecting our troops from getting into situations they are not planning to get into. At the same time, we have to recognize that we have never used cluster munitions, nor will we ever.
I have a quick question for the member on interoperational planning. The U.S. has failed to sign on to this. Obama will not sign on to this. A concern from a planning standpoint, in bringing all these things together, is that if clause 11 were actually taken out of the bill, I would be concerned that this would prevent Canadians from being involved in some of these planning missions, because they would not dare take on the risk of that interoperability planning. Even though maybe the Royal Canadian Air Force would be involved as part of the mission and should be in the planning, it would not want to be, because it would be held on criminal charges if clause 11 were actually taken out of the bill. I would like his comment on that.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said I was a cluster munitions expert. That is why I would rely instead on the comments of the Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which stated that clause 11 would authorize activities that would undermine the purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions instead of bringing about their elimination.
Thus, as we can see, experts in civil society, including those with the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, are very uncomfortable with clause 11.
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
In his opinion, why does the NDP have to continue pressuring the Conservatives to amend this bill? Is it to ensure that Canada’s humanitarian reputation is not tarnished by this weak bill?
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my New Democrat colleague for her excellent question. The reason the NDP is so insistent that clause 11 be removed is that we believe Canada must not be complicit in the handling and transportation of cluster munitions.
Sometimes cluster munitions do not explode and they become anti-personnel mines. A number of members of the Canadian Forces have been victims of them. To give an indication of the extent of the damage caused by cluster munitions, I need only note that 98% of all injuries associated with cluster munitions are suffered by civilians.
These cluster munitions are not exploding in Canada; they are exploding in countries where there are conflicts, and the civilian population should not be paying the price. All of the countries that have not ratified the convention, including the United States, should ratify it so that we can live in a better world where there are fewer lives lost.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is a really important bill, because it is Canada's opportunity to show the community of nations that we are committed still to our role in the world that we established through the Ottawa process to deal with land mines and that on cluster munitions, we are prepared to implement the treaty, not just with a fingers-crossed-behind-our-back commitment but fully and in the spirit and letter of the treaty.
I agree with everything my hon. colleague said. I would ask him whether he does not agree that we should have implemented treaty language in Bill C-6.
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is a good one.
When we make amendments to a bill, we must indeed put them in the right place and have the right definition for them. If we were talking about a specific amendment, I could answer my colleague’s question in greater depth. However, she reminds us of the importance of the principle of the convention.
Canada has a strange relationship with the convention it has signed. Of the 113 countries that have signed the convention, only 84 have ratified it. Canada signed the convention on December 3, 2008, and the implementing legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on December 15, 2012. Even though the government has taken some action, it is deplorable for it to be trying get out of it with regard to clause 11.
