Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-6. Several of my colleagues have already spoken about it. Although we essentially agree with the agreement that was signed, we can no longer support Bill C-6 because of the additions that the government made.
Over the course of our careers, we have heard a lot of talk about land mines and we have been made aware of that issue. My colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the images that we see on television and the stories that are told about people who have been affected by these weapons and children who have been maimed by this type of explosive years after the conflict has ended in many countries. Even today, even after the wars have ended, this problem still remains. That is very unfortunate, and we should take a lesson from that.
People are always saying that we need to remember history and that we need to talk about it in order to prevent those sorts of things from happening again.
The effects of the cluster munitions that we are talking about today are just as devastating as those of the land mines we are all so familiar with. It is important to point out that 10% to 40% of these submunitions do not explode immediately. They remain in the ground for many years.
This reminds me of a file I worked on. A veteran came to see me. He talked about the explosion that happened at Valcartier 40 years ago. By the way, there will be special memorial ceremony this summer to mark the 40th anniversary of that incident.
Some young cadets were transporting grenades, and one of those grenades was live. Some of these young people died, while others lived but still carry emotional and physical scars 40 years later.
This man, who was in charge of the cadets, was still crying as he talked to me about it.
When I hear talk about land mines or cluster munitions, as a mother, a grandmother and a person who sees the destruction caused by war and the use of these weapons, I think that we should learn a lesson from this and that we should immediately stop doing this type of thing. We have the opportunity to do so today. We have the opportunity, as leaders, to refuse to say that we have no choice because the countries that we work with did not sign the agreement and have the right to use them. Yes, we have a choice. Instead, we should be working to dissuade those countries from using them.
I would like to give an example. Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, 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.
Why would we pass watered-down legislation? Why would we not take this opportunity to show the world that we can take a leadership role, using the examples I mentioned earlier, to demonstrate that this should not be happening? We need to stop it. It is our duty.
We also know that 98% of injuries caused by cluster munitions are inflicted on civilians. Civilians who give of their time to work on destroying these mines are injured.
As I said, we just need to think about the examples that my colleague gave earlier, the stories we see on television and what we hear from people who have been affected.
It is clear to us that these weapons need to be banned. We need to show some leadership.
We have stood by Canadian and foreign civilian organizations that are calling for this bill to be amended.
I am very disappointed that the government rejected the amendment we proposed last Tuesday to clause 11 of the bill. It was very important.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre spoke about it in the speech he gave earlier today. The amendment was designed to prohibit Canadians soldiers from being directly involved in the use of cluster munitions. The government wants to allow them to be indirectly involved in their use. That comes back to what I was saying earlier, that Canada would be following in the footsteps of countries that have not signed the convention. That is unacceptable.
We need to demonstrate once again that Canada is a country that can show leadership. Canada may never have experienced a civil war, but we are familiar with the consequences. Immigrants and new Canadians have lived through war and share those experiences with us. We never want to go down that road.
We want to maintain our soldiers' ability to work with other countries. However, we need to be sure that the Canadian Forces will never use cluster munitions.
Earlier, I spoke about one stakeholder in particular, and I would like to mention a few others who have similar concerns about this bill. Many experts share our view. I would like to share a few examples that some members have already mentioned. It is important to repeat them.
Earl Turcotte, the former senior coordinator for mine action, who was the head of the Canadian delegation that negotiated the convention, said:
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.
When you sign a convention, you have a duty to comply with it and not find roundabout ways to avoid fulfilling the obligations you committed to in that convention. That is what is going on here. That is what this government is doing, which is truly unfortunate for Canadians. It is also truly unfortunate for the leadership of our country and for Canada's image on the world stage. We must reject this; it is not too late.
The government should understand the consequences of what it is doing. We disagree with the bill because it does not honour the commitment that we made. This government has the means and the time to fix that. We must not accept the proposed changes, and we must move forward to protect our soldiers and the families, children and civilians who would be affected by this bill.
Mr. Turcotte is also concerned about the diplomatic consequences this flawed bill could have. He said that Bill C-6 constituted an about-face on several key commitments Canada made during the negotiations and when it signed the convention in 2008 and that the bill is an affront to the other states who negotiated in good faith.
Mr. Turcotte even resigned his position after 30 years of service at that organization. He could not accept that Canada would impose such a weak implementing legislation. That is what we must condemn.
We have experts, so why not listen to them? Why not pass the best bill possible?
Since my time us up, I will now take questions from my colleagues.