Those are the figures we have, Mr. Speaker. It is true that collateral damage occurs, because civilians have even been killed by these weapons, and CBC journalists who witnessed that have also been severely wounded.
Apart from clause 11, what does the wording of the bill say? It refers to the prohibition of these weapons, and yet people will be in contact with them. Soldiers will carry out their missions right to the end because they are honest men acting in good faith who defend their honour. However, it is utterly absurd that hundreds of thousands of people should suffer the collateral damage caused by this kind of weapon. These are innocent victims who will lose an arm, a leg or both. Their lives will be ruined forever. This is completely ridiculous.
If the government wanted to introduce a bill that is true to our tradition and certainly to our nature as a peace-loving country, it would have to ensure that, no matter where our soldiers are deployed, they will not come into contact with this type of weapon. Of course, that is virtually impossible. At least if the bill conveyed that intent, we could say that the legislative body, the House of Commons, had done its duty.
I will ignore all of the comments about whether we should debate this or not. This will end soon, and we will all spend a lovely summer campaigning in our ridings.