Paul Dewar

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

It is an incredibly important one. I think of the example in aerospace. Recently there were some investigations in the United States about certain parts for planes. When some of them were examined, they were found to be counterfeit. This is very serious. Imagine if planes have counterfeit parts and there is no oversight as to the quality. We are talking about putting people's lives in danger.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell a very quick story about my father, who worked for his entire career with Customs and Excise. He worked on the GATT side, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was really important that everyone understood the nomenclature and that when we had to enforce copyright, our trading partners agreed on the rules and understood that nomenclature, such as we declare that a book is a book. It sounds simple, one would think, but these debates often go on in trade agreements. In the case of GATT, it was really important to get it right.

I would say to my colleague that if we are handing these powers over to our border officials to use these powers to crack down on counterfeiting, they need to understand exactly what the legislation means. These resources for Canada Border Services agents are absolutely critical. They need to have the proper training so that this legislation will actually work.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

We are now switching from the situation in Congo, but I want to finish pleading with my colleagues across the way to really consider that issue. If there is one issue that is not partisan, it is this one about what is happening in Congo. I think we can somehow find a way to agree on how to stem the violence in Congo.

The bill that I am now addressing is Bill C-8. Members will know that this legislation has quite a lengthy history. I do not mean just Bill C-8, but the whole issue of copyright and the Trade-marks Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

This issue requires caution. It requires an understanding of not just the law but enforcement of the law as well.

Many people are concerned about how international treaties and copyright interplay. They are concerned about the fact that we are in the midst of finishing negotiations on CETA and how that agreement would relate to copyright. It is important to note that the international agreement dealing with counterfeiting also comes into play here. Many have noted that while a treaty to combat counterfeiting presently exists, not many countries have signed on to it, about which there is some concern. It is this international context, and how it would apply to this legislation, that we are dealing with.

If we abide by certain rules made by legislation such as this and there are trade deals or other treaties we have to contend with, it is important that we understand what those trade deals and treaties mean. In the case of CETA, it is important to understand how it would apply.

I am pleading with the government yet again to at least tell us what is going on with respect to CETA, because it would affect trademark and copyright legislation. My understanding is that there could be consequences from the CETA deal for copyright and trademarks. I would like to hear about what action the government is taking. I would like to know what success, or lack thereof, the government has had with respect to CETA, and the sooner the better.

Here we are trying to find a way to help people create in an unhindered and legal way, while also making sure that the creative class will be able to access technology and ideas and material and will not be suppressed. The law has to find a balance. By the same token, we want to make sure that what we are creating and what we have copyright protection for will not be usurped or be taken and used without the creators benefiting from their work. It is obviously a delicate balance.

I would like to go over some of the aspects of the bill and what it proposes to do.

As I said, this legislation has a long history. I remember previous Parliaments that attempted to deal with the copyright issue. It should be noted that many of our trading partners have been pleading with us, particularly our friends south of the border, to get this done and get it right. The new ambassador brought it up in a recent meeting with us. He indicated that this was an important issue for the United States because most of our trade is done with that country.

Bill C-8 deals with counterfeiting and infringement, which is important. It proposes to add two new criminal offences to the Copyright Act for the possession of and export of infringed copies. The bill would also create offences for the selling or offering of counterfeit goods on a commercial scale.

There is some contention as to the degree of the export and import of counterfeit goods.

I cite Michael Geist, because he is the expert in the country on this issue. His testimony at committee raised some questions about the extent to which there is counterfeiting. He should be listened to, because he is an expert. He asked this very good question: what is the scope of the studies that are referenced by government and officials? In other words, do we have accurate data?

That said, it is important that we have legislation that would deal with counterfeiting and the trade of counterfeiting materials, as contemplated in this bill.

That is the first part. The bill adds two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale.

The other aspect is that it creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods. It introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exemptions. One is personal use. As I referenced earlier, it relates to the creative class and those in the knowledge industry. I will use educators as an example.

I come from the business of teaching. As educators, it is important that we have access to knowledge and make it available to students. There is a balance that has to be struck so that we will not arrest teachers if they are just sharing materials with their students to allow them to gain knowledge. That is one of the areas we have to keep in mind.

The other one we have to look for is items in transit control.

Finally, the bill would grant new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is a significant policy shift, because until now border officials required these private rights holders to obtain a court order before seizing infringing copies or goods. The bill grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with rights holders. It also widens the scope of what can be a trademark to the features found in the broad definition of “sign”, which includes all sorts of things: shapes, colours, scents, et cetera. What we want to see on this side is that we strike that balance. These are fairly important new powers that are being given to the government.

I will finish by saying that it is fine to pass laws on copyright and trademark to make sure that we deal with what we are focused on—that is, those who decide to get into the business of knock-offs and use the creations of others to benefit themselves when they have not had any input into the creation of any goods, ideas, or products. By the same token, how do we enforce these measures?

Members will hear from my colleagues tonight about some of the problems we have with the government's cutting of border services in this area. On the one hand, it is fine to give powers to border agents to say, “Here it is; you make sure that you deal with the infringements on copyright”, but on the other hand it has cut the budgets of those who are responsible for dealing with this authority.

This is an issue with our friends south of the border. They are aware of this. We have had issues with our friends south of the border regarding regulations. Let us make no mistake, this is a trade issue. They want to know if we are serious about this issue and will bring in laws that are modern and up to date with current copyright thinking. That means little unless we have an enforcement mechanism, to say the least. It is not only about passing laws; it is also about ensuring that we have resources on the ground to enforce them.

Members will hear from my colleagues and me that we have to get it right and make sure that we do not go too far in terms of infringing on those in the creative class, those in the knowledge business, and those who need to have access to materials, while on the other side making sure that if we bring in new responsibilities for our border agents, we do not cut their budgets. It is important that we give them support and training as to what these new powers mean and how they will exercise them.

At the end of the day, we will be supporting the bill to ensure that we do our bit as a country, that we have a balance in terms of the copyright obligations, that those in the creative and knowledge classes have access to the materials they need to create, and that, on the other hand, we provide our border agents with the proper support that they need in material supplies and training.

[Conflict Minerals Act, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking all of my colleagues, in particular my colleagues on this side. I particularly want to thank the parliamentary secretary for her comments. I will deal with her concerns in a minute, but I first want to say how proud I am to stand to speak on Bill C-486, the conflict minerals act.

Five years ago, as I have mentioned many times in this House, I was in the Congo. I saw the exploitation of mineral resources and their contribution to violence. As I have said before, all of us have these little devices that we carry around, and thus we carry a little piece of the conflict with us—unknowingly for many. That is really what this is about. I am tying the purchases that we make to the conflict that is happening in the Congo, which, as has been stated before, is the rape capital of the world. It is where rape is used as a weapon of war, and where 5.4 million people have died since 1998. It is a tragic war.

I want to say that the bill has already helped. We have had an incredible dialogue here in the House and around the country about the connection between minerals and conflict. We have heard some of that debate tonight and an acknowledgement from the government that this is a concern.

Thousands of people across the country have signed petitions and written letters in support of this legislation. Groups as diverse as the Grandmothers Advocacy Network, the Jane Goodall Institute of Canada, Students Taking Action Now, the Canadian Fair Trade Network, the Enough Project in the States that is partnering with us here in Canada, Engineers Without Borders, and many church and faith groups have got behind the Just Minerals campaign in support of Bill C-486. I am so thankful for their advocacy on this important legislation.

The bill has made parliamentarians in this House take note of an often forgotten and overlooked crisis in Central Africa. The last time the bill was debated, all parties agreed that further action was needed by Canada. We have a consensus on that, which is important. In the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

I am pleased to say that this government agrees wholeheartedly...that further engagement by Canada is warranted to find effective and efficient ways to address the issue of conflict minerals.

I could not agree more. That is an important consensus. We heard it from the parliamentary secretary again tonight, and I take note of that.

Moreover, all parties agree on the principle of the bill, the crucial point that Canada can help to disconnect the minerals in Canadian products from the conflict in the Congo. However, I have to underline that this is not about Canadian mining companies. In fact, I am engaged right now with the Mining Association of Canada, and if the government sees the agreement, I hope to get support from them. This is actually about bad actors, about those who are mining in the eastern Congo and controlling the mines with conflict, using child soldiers and rape as a weapon of war. This is not about Canadian mining companies; this is actually to give Canadian mining companies a good reputation, so let us put that aside. While it is not about Canadian mining companies, it is about the supply chain of those companies.

I will now address some of the stated concerns of my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

She is concerned about the scope of the bill. She said its scope is too big. To address her concern directly, what we are saying is that we need reporting along the supply chain. That would simply be about keeping tabs on a computer about where people are sourcing their supplies. It is very simple. It would actually help.

That addresses her second concern, the focus of the bill, which is the Great Lakes region. Why? It is because that is where the conflict is and that is where the minerals are. That is why the bill is focused on it, just as the OECD was and just as the legislation in the United States was. It is because we can make a difference if we focus here.

The parliamentary secretary said that the bill is too narrowly cast on the Great Lakes. The good news is that we learned from the Dodd-Frank Act that the reporting would not just be here in Canada, but that we would also share it with the people in the Congo so that the government there could track and trace where these minerals are coming from. That would help build up their capacity and help people in the Congo.

Second reading is about agreeing on principle. I would ask that the government look to the consensus, and if second reading is about taking it to committee to improve the bill, then I would ask the government and members to consider that. If we want to take conflict out of our devices and give Canadians a clear choice on what they are buying, I would submit that we have to get this bill to committee and third reading, so we can improve it, save lives, and stop the horrendous conflict in the Congo by doing our fair share. That is the least we can do for the people of the Congo.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, in asking that question, is showing his legal background.

This is an important point, because when we are considering legislation and the implementation of a treaty, if we are putting in loopholes that actually undermine the treaty, we can be an accessory to something we are trying to actually avoid. The member is absolutely right to note this.

We are flummoxed on this side as to why the government would go down this path under the guise of interoperability. Everyone knows that the section in the treaty, which was negotiated by a Canadian particularly to get it right on interoperability, is there in the treaty. All we had to do was cut and paste it, but the Conservatives decided not to do that. Instead, they put loopholes in, and that is very unfortunate.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her engagement as well, and for the amendments she put forward, which we supported.

In fact, there is a history here. I remember talking to former Prime Minister Clark about this not too long ago. He was at committee a couple of years ago. There was a notion when it comes to international treaties on arms control, et cetera, that we do the best we can with all hands on deck, to have the best and the brightest, the most professional people advising us. This is where the government has gone down the wrong road.

The Conservatives have looked at international treaties and have seen them as perhaps barriers or as undermining our sovereignty. I note that this is an issue right now with the Europeans. The strategic partnership agreement has not been signed, and perhaps it is getting in the way of the CETA.

The government should look back at when Canada had its biggest wins on the international stage. It was when all parties, and all departments if I may, as well as experts were providing their best advice so that we came up with the best legislation for international treaties.

Make no mistake: we have differences on domestic policy; I get that. However, when it is an international treaty, we should have the best minds looking at it. When we are being critiqued by the Red Cross, by former prime ministers of Australia, we are not doing our best.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a very quick story. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs returned from his trip to Cambodia, he was very moved. In fact, at committee he brought replicas of cluster munitions in. He spoke about talking to witnesses and seeing the effects of these cluster munitions, so I do not understand why the government would bring forward legislation with these loopholes.

I believe the Conservatives want to ban these and get rid of them. The question is how we do it. If we bring forward legislation with loopholes, it will undermine the integrity of the treaty. That is important because these treaties do not work unless we have legislation that works.

If I may, I would finally just say that it is indicative of the current government, though, when its members do not go to the right people to get advice.

While I am on my feet, I will note that we still have not signed the Arms Trade Treaty, without really any logic at all. The Conservatives say it is because they are protecting duck hunters. We actually just heard from duck hunters and they support the ATT, according to the news from last week.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me just give my colleague this response, and to read it into the record for the House. The following is stated in an article about the ongoing conflict in Syria:

Cluster munitions were used in Syria in areas with a high population density.

We know about the barrel bombs, but they are using cluster munitions as well. The article continues:

On March 1, 2013, they were used in a residential neighbourhood at 11:30 a.m., when children were playing outside in gardens. The attack exacted a heavy toll: at least 19 people were killed and 60 were injured. The unexploded cluster munitions will continue to pose a lethal threat to civilian lives for years to come.

That is the point. When these bomblets are dropped, there is an explosion on impact, but the bomblets fester and stick around and children pick them up. They the children are maimed or killed. That is why we have to be absolutely resolute to do our best to ensure that these munitions are banned.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 18th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate at third reading of Bill C-6. It has had a rather long history. In fact, it goes back to a bill we had before the last prorogation of Parliament. It was actually a Senate bill. Just to remind people, this is a bill to implement an international treaty. At the time, I was deeply concerned that we had a pattern of having bills as important as Bill C-6 being initiated in the Senate. I say that because it is important that we are the ones to initiate legislation in the House.

However, we had a prorogation. The government actually did bring the bill back to the House of Commons, which is important. I had expressed my dismay and concern about the fact that it had its origins in the Senate. I had talked to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as was already intimated by my colleague on the foreign affairs committee, the member from Saskatchewan. It was a matter of trying to convince the government that the Senate bill was problematic.

I went to the government and said that clause 11 was a problem. We have gone over this many times in the House. The person who actually negotiated this on behalf of the government said that the bill was flawed. This was not the opposition saying this. This was actually someone who negotiated the international treaty. To give some context, we send our brightest and most competent people to negotiate treaties on our country's behalf. As has been mentioned, the person who did that on behalf of our country looked at the bill and said that it undermined the integrity of the treaty we signed.

When we sign treaties, that is the first step. Then we have to implement them, because otherwise they are just a signature on a piece of paper. The implementation of the treaty is the bill we have, and it is absolutely critical to get it right.

I went across the aisle and talked to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and told him that this was a problem, particularly clause 11. I noted the fact that our own diplomat who negotiated the treaty had a problem with it. The minister listened, and I waited to see what response there would be. This was a Senate bill, remember. Sadly, the bill stayed put. The Conservatives did not change it, so it became a controversy not just here in Canada, as I will outline in my speech, but in the international community. This is not just about the opposition critiquing the bill. It is about what the international community is saying about the bill. It is about what our very own diplomats who negotiated the treaty are saying about the bill, which is that the bill is problematic.

It is worth noting that after almost two years of trying to engage the government to amend the bill, the Conservatives did allow one amendment. It is important to note that since 2011 I can count on one hand the number of times the Conservatives have accepted amendments.

It took a very long time to get a small amendment. It is absolutely true that I tried to work with the government on this. However, the amendment it brought forward was not enough to deal with the issues we have with the integrity of the bill as juxtaposed with the treaty.

It is very important to lay that out, because it shows that the government, first of all, took a long time to get the legislation going. We had signed the treaty. It took a couple of years to present legislation. At the same time, other countries that had signed the treaty had ratified it. It was put in place, and they were moving forward.

This is really important, because right now, as we speak, cluster munitions are being used in conflict. We are having to catch up, just like we had to do with land mines.

These are heinous munitions. It is difficult to understand how people contemplate these forms of munitions. Unlike land mines, which are planted in the ground, cluster munitions actually fall from the sky, and when they land, they explode with bomblets right across the terrain. No one is able to actually track them. Land mines are a bit different. We can find out from enemy combatants where they are planted. With cluster munitions, that is not the case.

The majority of victims, as we know, are civilians. Too many of them are children, because often children mistake them for toys. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this himself. He was very moved when he went to Cambodia and heard testimony. I gave this testimony last time we debated the bill. Kids actually take these back to their homes and go to play with them, and they blow up, They remove limbs and also take lives. These are heinous things. We have to get this right.

The government took its time bringing legislation forward. It tried it in the Senate and prorogation ended it. The same is offered here, after I went to the government.

What were some of the concerns? They have been enumerated numerous times, but I want to give a critique, not just from me but from the international community, on Canada's legislation for the implementation of an international treaty. There are a couple that are worthy of noting. We have noted them before, but they require repetition.

Let me quote first from our friends from Norway, who were responsible for helping to get this treaty together. The Norwegian ambassador, Steffen Kongstad, whose country holds the presidency for the actual process of the treaty, said:

We would normally not comment on the internal process in other countries. But I can say that we would not present such a law in the Norwegian parliament. It seems somewhat inconsistent with the purpose of the convention.

I do not think I have to tell members that diplomats speak diplomatically. When a diplomat who is in charge of the overall integrity of the treaty says to one of the member states that is a signatory to the treaty that he would not actually bring this forward to his own parliament, that is a very strong, direct signal from a diplomat. It is basically saying, “You got it wrong. You need to change it.” It is important to note that.

The Red Cross is another international voice we have heard from. Again, it is very rare. It is in the mandate of the Red Cross that it does not comment on a country's activities, behaviours, et cetera, because it undermines the integrity of the Red Cross. It is to be objective. It was actually the Red Cross that cited our legislation as not being sufficient, as undermining the treaty.

It is perplexing. Many people are asking how clause 11, on interoperability, happened. We have had this debate back and forth between the government and members of my party about why we had to have this. Other countries and people who helped negotiate and implement this legislation are actually saying that it is not the case. We can have interoperability and still ensure that none of our forces, diplomats, or anyone involved in the theatre of war would have anything to do with cluster munitions. The government says we cannot do that but then says that we will never use them. It has an inconsistency in its argument.

The question is how we got here. I would argue that it is the way the government does policy, particularly on international affairs. What we learned after we heard from the former diplomat who actually negotiated the treaty was that after the treaty was negotiated and the government signed the treaty, it went to implement it. Who did the government go to exclusively? It went to the Department of National Defence. It should consult the Department of National Defence. It is very important. There is expertise. We heard from the department at committee. It was extraordinarily important to hear from it, because it has to know how to implement the actual legislation in theatre. However, what was astonishing, and it is a pattern with the government, was that it was not consulting the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It is astonishing. Here is how I understood and still understand the way things should work when it comes to international treaties, particularly around conflict. It is the role of the diplomats to negotiate these treaties, and it is the role of our diplomats and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is the top diplomat in cabinet, to look at how to implement legislation. He or she should be going to the department and seeking out the best advice from experts in diplomacy on how we implement a treaty in legislation.

That did not happen. What we had instead was the Department of National Defence having the first go at it, and we ended up with this clause 11. That's nothing to say against the military; it protects itself. We know that. That is what institutions and departments do.

What the department did was that it put in clause 11 in the bill, after section 22 of the treaty, which talks about interoperability. It was pretty clear, and I actually asked for an amendment to lift section 22 out of the treaty and to put it into the legislation. Then there would have been an absolutely direct connection between the treaty and legislation, by cut and pasting that treaty section. However, they did not do that. What they did was put in clause 11.

Clause 11 actually states, and part of this was changed through the amendment process, that Canadian Forces personnel could use cluster munitions. I say that, and most people think it is unbelievable that we would sign a treaty banning the use of cluster munitions, but then have in the implementing legislation of that very treaty a clause that would put Canadian Forces personnel into a situation where they could use cluster munitions.

We can see the inherent contradiction and paradox within the legislation. Why did the government do that? We heard from the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Natynczyk, who said that this was very important, that there had to be clarity of purpose and direction when doing joint operations with our friends in the States. I could not agree with him more. It is true.

However, it does not preclude our having different protocols. Why? Well, when I and others were in Afghanistan, we knew on the ground that there were different caveats for different operations. They were clear. In fact, in ISAF's mandate on how it worked on the ground in Afghanistan, there were caveats for different forces who made up the international security forces in Afghanistan. They are caveats, different ways of operating in the field.

There should not be too many caveats, because they can undermine the coherence of a mission. However, we have them. The general knew that. However, he was able to get the government to put in what he wanted. What he wanted was clear: it was to have an exemption for the Canadian Forces in the case of interoperability and a scenario with the Americans where cluster munitions were used.

It is very important to note all of these facts: where the bill came from, who negotiated the bill, and the fact that we had this section 11, which the Red Cross and the diplomats who helped negotiate it for Canada, and Norway, which was responsible for the overall framework of the agreement, all said the same thing about. I will add here, just for good measure, because I know that the Prime Minister is a fan of Australian prime ministers, that we had a former Australian prime minister with the same party leaning as the Prime Minister saying this was a flawed bill.

If we put that all together, what do we have? It is a flawed bill that undermines not only the integrity of the treaty but also our reputation as a country, because our signature is on the bill. It is the legislation we are implementing.

All of these things come together with the following result. Let me read into the record what we were able to negotiate with the government as an amendment. We negotiated paragraph 11(1)(c), which would have allowed, as I was just explaining, the Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. It is true that the government took that out. That has to be acknowledged, but what was left in there was the rest of clause 11, after it was amended. The government listened to us and took out one part of section 11, which would have allowed Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions. This inherent paradox was taken out. However, they left in the following:

Section 6 does not prohibit a person [in the forces]...in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition...

What that means in English is that we could have the Canadian Forces directing an operation using cluster munitions. Let us put forward a scenario: I have cluster munitions and I am in the Canadian Forces. Before, the exemption allowed the Canadian Forces to directly drop the bomb. Now, according to what we still have and what is problematic in the bill, we could direct another force to drop cluster munitions.

That is the first problem that we have with the bill. We are glad that they took out the part that the Canadian Forces shall not use them, but directing or authorizing activity for others to use them is still problematic. It is a matter of accountability.

Yet again, there is another problem with clause 11. It refers to the Canadian Forces “expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition”. Again, directing the use of cluster munitions is allowed by the Canadian Forces, and in paragraph (b) of clause 11, they can request their use. They can ask someone to bring in a raid and drop cluster munitions on a certain target if it is for the Canadian Forces. It makes no sense. We are saying this is a treaty to ban cluster munitions, but in clause 11 we are saying it is okay for the Canadian Forces to direct or request the use of cluster munitions.

Here is the part that I find fascinating. When this point was made to the government time and time again by me, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the former prime minister of Australia, other experts, and the diplomat who negotiated this treaty, the government said that it was true that it would allow the Canadian Forces to use cluster munitions, that there was an exemption here. However, here is the caveat: the government said that it would direct, through the Chief of Defence Staff, the banning of the use of cluster munitions.

This is fine, but it is simply a promise. We are talking about legislation to follow a treaty. We have a massive loophole like this, and the government is covering it by saying that it would direct our Chief of the Defence Staff to tell our forces that we shall never use them. Members can see the contradiction. Why would we not put it into legislation to ensure that there is no scenario where Canadian Forces would use cluster munitions?

This gets into the most important argument, which is the debate that we had at committee and which is still happening outside Canada in regard to our reputation in implementing the treaty. As my colleagues already mentioned, it is the worst legislation of any signatory to the treaty.

The government says that because of interoperability, it does not really want to put in these exemptions but that it has to because of the nature of our relationship with the United States. Other NATO countries can have interoperability, according to section 22 of the treaty, and follow it, which is what we hoped and negotiated for. However, we are Canada and we are special, so we must have these loopholes.

Here is the problem. In the case of Afghanistan, as I already mentioned, we were there with the Brits, the Dutch, and others who are signatories to the treaty. They do not have this exemption. They have interoperability with the Americans.

The fact of the matter is, and my colleagues know this, that we can be explicit as to what we will be doing in the field, be it through caveats or joint training. If we are doing joint training, it is pretty obvious that we would be using the opportunity in our joint training with our American friends to say that they know that we have signed this treaty, here is the legislation, here is what we will be doing to make sure that Canada, in joint operations with our friends in the States, will not be using cluster munitions in theatre. We have already done this with land mines.

Let me finish with this. We got the government to make one amendment, but it is clearly not sufficient when the government is still allowing troops to guide and request the use of cluster munitions. That is why clause 11 must go. That is why we will oppose this bill.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to first of all underline a number that was just mentioned, and that is number 73. This is the 73rd time that the government has decided to shut down debate and put time allocation on something as important as our international obligations on a treaty that the government, frankly, has bungled.

I say that with great sadness, because this was a treaty that was negotiated years ago. The first attempt that the government made to actually implement the treaty came from the other place, which was another snub to democracy. The government, at one time when it was in opposition, talked about the importance of debate and the importance of having engaged parliamentarians to make sure that everyone was well informed.

What the Conservatives are actually doing is shutting down debate for their own members on something as important as our international obligations. If members from the Conservative Party wanted to debate this and be on the record for how they support the government's own legislation, they are shut down. It is not just about this side. It is about their side.

I remember very well the minister, who is looking over here with great big eyes open, arguing in opposition how important it was that they would have debate. I remember they were so aghast with Mr. Chrétien shutting down debate at the time.

I want to ask the government why it is shutting down debate on a bill. We are talking about report-stage amendments. This is a bill that is so flawed that the International Red Cross, which never speaks publicly on bills, has said it is a flawed bill. The former prime minister of Australia said the same.

How can Conservatives shut down debate on something as important as our obligations? By design, they are muzzling and shutting down debate for their own members to bring up their points of view for this important legislation.