Mr. Speaker, I also remember a debate we were having in the House about asbestos, and all of his colleagues were talking about budget 2012; so relevance is quite a broad concept for the Conservatives when it applies to them, but when it applies to us it is different. We see the double standard here.
I am sorry the Minister of Foreign Affairs is gone. I wanted to ask him a question. If the Conservative government can neither conceive of nor tolerate the use of cluster bombs, why have we not heard the Conservative government take a strong stance on the use of these weapons in the Syrian conflict? Why has it not condemned the use of these weapons in conflicts such as the one going on now in Syria?
For example, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the convention was a back-door way of reinstating a gun registry or trampling on the right to own a gun. That makes no sense at all. This is about the international arms trade, armed conflict, war and military operations.
The Conservative government's ideology—and nothing else—has made it completely powerless on the world stage. That is totally unacceptable. Canada is abandoning thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of victims around the world. Once again, the Conservatives are revealing their double standard when it comes to protecting victims.
I want to reiterate that the former negotiator walked off the job because the legislation was too weak, and it was proposed by a weak government. The Conservatives do not walk the talk. The government's international policy is weak and wishy-washy. Unfortunately this has been the case since the government came to power in 2006. The proof is that we did not win a seat on the UN Security Council. That says it all.
Canada is opposed to a motion against sexual violence and to the Arms Trade Treaty. What other gifts await us from a Conservative government that is trying to sneak in changes that would fundamentally alter the spirit of a convention that affects millions of men, women and children worldwide?
I have received several messages from people around the world, young people, who are asking Canada to change this bill. When children from other countries are sending messages to Canadian MPs begging us to change a bill, we are obviously way off the mark. I find it completely outrageous that the government is trying to shift the blame.
In 2009, Germany, France, Japan and Mexico signed the treaty. In 2010, Great Britain followed suit, and in 2012, Australia came on board. These countries are all allies of the United States and they have all had joint missions with the United States. Did their soldiers suffer because their countries signed the convention? No, they did not.
The government is trying to shirk its responsibilities and shift the blame onto the United States and our own soldiers. It is everybody else's fault, except the Conservative government's. In fact, it is as if the Conservatives were in a playground refusing to do something that their friend is not doing.
Canada should be a leader. It once was, but I think that, unfortunately, those days will soon be over. When we negotiated the land mines treaty, there was no question of having these types of clauses. Did soldiers suffer as a result of that treaty? No, they did not. Why does the government now want to change direction?
As I was saying, our position on land mines was clear. If memory serves, none of our soldiers suffered because interoperability clauses were not included in the treaty.
I would like to quote a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who served in a war and used cluster munitions. He said:
...Canadian officials have cited the need for Canada to retain military interoperability—the ability to conduct joint operations with allies—as a reason for the loopholes contained in Bill C-6.
We are talking about a very experienced solider who served for 25 years.
Interoperability is indeed vital. I saw that as the allies worked together to liberate Kuwait almost 23 years ago, but in 25 years in the military, from the cockpit of a ground attack aircraft to NATO headquarters and operational staffs, I saw nothing to suggest that a ban on cluster munitions would fundamentally affect interoperability. Indeed, many states have already banned them, but high-intensity coalition operations have continued.
It was Richard MacCormac, an experienced soldier, who said that the interoperability clauses will not prevent soldiers from serving in military operations. The Conservatives are misleading the House when they claim that our soldiers will suffer.