Mr. Speaker, I think it is always a difficult question for members of this House when we are presented with a flawed bill, and we have to ask ourselves whether a flawed bill is better than no bill.
I am looking at this bill. All members of this House, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has described cluster bombs as a horrific weapon. There is no question that this weapon is something that all right-minded people in civilized countries of whatever stripe, from the left, right or centre, all agree are weapons that simply should not and cannot be used in this world.
We have agreed as a country in this treaty that Canadian soldiers will not use these weapons. However, my understanding is that, through the loopholes that our government somehow led and negotiated, Canadian soldiers would still be allowed to acquire, possess or transport cluster munitions when they are acting with other non-party states because of the concept of interoperability. In others words, it wants to allow Canadian soldiers when we are working with countries that will not sign this treaty to keep using them.
We have this concept in our law about being an accessory. If using a horrific weapon is wrong, how can being party to transporting or facilitating the use of that weapon by someone else not be equally as wrong?