Paul Dewar

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-14. As I do with all of the bills that come from the Senate, I have to start by talking a bit about parliamentary democracy, particularly with respect to this legislation.

We are seeing this disturbing trend where bills come to his place that originate in the Senate. I do not know what those members over there were thinking when they were first elected, particularly those who started with the Reform Party, but we have never seen so many pieces of legislation. Was that Preston Manning's vision of what the Senate would become? Over 58 senators have been appointed by the present Prime Minister and they were not appointed on the basis of merit but rather on who they knew. We see what is unravelling there now.

The originators of this piece of legislation are in that place. This legislation is about corruption with companies that some of the people over there have some problems with. There is a conflict of interest here. If members across the way cannot see this, then they should open their eyes. How could they not have caught this? They could not even see the fact that a bill that deals with corruption with companies should not start in the Senate where people are still sitting on boards of corporations. It is called a conflict of interest, and that whole place is a conflict of interest it seems these days.

This does need to be pointed out to Canadians as they watch the crisis in Parliament and in the Senate. Senators who have been appointed to that place sit with elected members from this place in caucus every Wednesday, and they share all their information and wisdom. They are seen as legitimate players in terms of what happens in our parliamentary democracy. That is a shame, and it obviously should be changed. This legislation should be dealt with through sober eyes and with clean hands. I am sorry, but there is a problem when people who sit on the boards of corporations are the originators of this legislation. I cannot believe the Conservatives could not see that; although these days there is a bit of a fog over there as to principles and ethics. Everyone knows about that.

Bill S-14 is overdue. Canada ranks dead last when it comes to transparency. The government talked a good game in 2006. I just heard the parliamentary secretary's rationale of “could not get it done”. That reminded me of the previous government that was going to do all sorts of things on climate change and so on, but it just could not get it done. The Conservative government has been in power since 2006, and Canada is ranked dead last in the G7 when it comes to transparency.

However, now it comes forward at the last minute. We will be embarrassed at the G8 if we do not get in line with what other G7 countries want to do, and that is to have full disclosure with Canadian companies, particularly the extractive companies, when it comes to doing business abroad. The bill would not deal with that. The bill is the bare minimum when it comes to looking at corruption and how Canadian companies do business abroad, which is basically after they are caught.

We need to go much further than this. We need to look at the initiatives taken south of the border. We need to think about what we are going to see when the G7 comes up. British Prime Minister Cameron is going to talk about taxes, transparency and trade. Under transparency, he is going to put on the table the EITI principles, which Canada has been called out on. Right now, Russia and Canada are the two countries in the G8 that are being called out for not doing enough. We have to change that because it involves our good name.

I will not bite on the parliamentary secretary's notion that the NDP is against all mining, gas and oil. Many of us have worked in those sectors. We represent constituents who work in those sectors. I am not sure if he has been there, but the parliamentary secretary should go to northern Ontario and he would understand that. Alas, I will not bite on that. It has no credibility, as is often the case with the parliamentary secretary.

We need to understand that if we do not do more, if this is all the government has to offer in terms of Canada crawling out from last place in transparency, then we have failed. Not only will we have failed in terms of our reputation abroad, but we will have failed Canadian companies. Let me spend a couple of minutes speaking on that.

Right now the mining sector is ready to fully embrace the principles of disclosure. It is stunning that the government has not actually met the industry's wish to have that happen. Why is it doing that? It is because the world has changed and these guys are living in the past. The Conservatives think they can go with the old rules and everything will be fine, that people sit around the table and say, “We have to catch up with this because if we don't it's going to catch up to us”.

The world is passing us by. Industry is passing us by. Industry actually wants to embrace full disclosure of all transactions with foreign countries and companies that they are doing business with overseas. It is really bizarre for me to see that the government is so far in the past and that we have every other country in the G7 passing us by. Canada used to be the leader in the area of international law transparency. We are dead last right now.

Bill S-14 would create new offences for those who are concealing records. Fine. It would make sure the notion of the exception for so-called facilitation payments would be dealt with. SNC-Lavalin could tell us a lot about that; obviously, that is something it got caught in. Should we have dealt with that a long time ago? Absolutely. Is it going far enough? Absolutely not. It is a question of whether the government actually believes in corporate social responsibility. That is what it is about.

What the government fails to do, sadly, is to understand that the rest of the world is moving ahead. If it is going to be stuck in the past, it is at the cost of Canada's reputation, and actually at the cost of Canadian businesses, because no country will want to have a company coming in that is not up to the highest standard. Those are the old days, where they could say they were going to open up an operation in a country and they would have to do certain things because it is a cultural thing there, the way they do business, and just pretend it is okay. Those days are gone, and the government had better wake up to that because the future is about full transparency. It is about full daylight. It is not just about bringing in provisions like this bill, which was something that should have been done decades ago; it is about actually going much further.

When we look at Canada's footprint in the world, we should be leaders. Canada's footprint, particularly in the extractive industry, in mining, and gas and oil to some extent as well, is massive. As members probably know, we have the largest footprint when it comes to concentration of investment, and just look at the Toronto Stock Exchange. That is something we have to pay particular attention to. If we are not careful and we are not bringing in full transparency and requirements for industry when doing business abroad, it could affect investment, in the short and the long run, frankly.

We will see other countries passing us by. Also, if countries that are wanting to get into this field see Canada as living in the past and not being brought up to the standards that many in the international community have embraced, then that will affect investment and jobs. It will mean that instead of being seen as a leader in this area, Canada will continue to be seen as a laggard.

It is interesting that the government did not add more teeth to this legislation earlier. I say that because we had some very fulsome debates on the idea of corporate social responsibility. I know my colleague from the Liberal Party will recall that. At the time, the government was so consumed with shutting down any further requirements for industry when doing their business abroad that it forgot to look at what was happening around the world. At the time it was just about “kill that bill”, and it was successful in doing so. What it forgot to do was to look around and notice the world was changing. Even countries that are often criticized, like China, is doing a lot to change the way it is doing business abroad.

I find it rather simplistic, at best, that the government decided it would only bring forward this legislation after being in power since 2006, that it would come from the Senate, which is the definition of irony, I guess, and that it would not understand that we have to do more in this area.

When some of us travel abroad, we talk to people in government and on the ground and ask, “What are your feelings about what is happening in terms of Canada's participation in your country?” The one thing many people say is that they would like more enforcement in terms of transparency. They say that because they actually want us there, there is no question about it. By and large, Canadian companies have a good reputation; the parliamentary secretary and I agree on this. However, people want us to go further and embrace the norms and standards that the rest of the world has now embraced.

I think of places I have been to like the Congo. There was a recent study by Kofi Annan, in which he identified the problem now in the continent of Africa, where there is massive investment. The problem is that the people who are responsible for, so to speak, stewardship of the land and people who live on the land, are not seeing the benefits. Essentially, it is because money is being sucked out of the continent. It is going elsewhere and they are not seeing the benefits. That social contract that is absolutely critical when investing anywhere in Canada, but especially overseas, is being disrupted. People are not seeing the benefits of having an enterprise in their communities and many now are fighting against it. Clearly, we have to get our house in order. Clearly, we have to do more than what is being offered in this bill. As I said at the beginning, New Democrats will support this bill in principle and study it in committee.

One has to ask oneself if the government actually understands what is happening in the world today. I would argue it does not. There are, as I said before, umbrella groups that represent mining saying they are ready and absolutely on board with full transparency and strengthening the EITI principles. They tell government to get on board and get going and they get silence, at best, from government. One has to wonder what world it is living in.

If we look at what is happening around the world, the world has changed significantly. We see developing emerging economies with more capacity to develop their own resources. We see that the BRIC countries are obviously playing a more significant role than even five or six years ago. Instead of trying to do the minimum, Canada should be doing a lot more because what it means for both our reputation and ability to do business are absolutely connected.

I will give the example of China. Many people have talked over the years about how much China is involved in the development of oil and gas and mining overseas. In fact, there was an issue on the west coast of Canada with a Chinese mining company. It understands now that it cannot go in and do whatever it wants. It has to substantively change its business model, ensure there is no corruption and that it adheres to some basic norms. That is a big change because it knows that at some point the host country will no longer welcome it if there is seen to be, and there is, a lack of transparency.

Internationally, Canada has the responsibility to engage in responsible commerce. I will tell the government to look at what it has done to date. It decided that it would fight to the end on strengthening corporate social responsibility and it brought in a counsellor on the issue. Everyone who has studied the operations of that office will note that it is like the integrity commissioner. There is a person at that office, but there is not a lot going on. The lights are on, yes, but I am wondering if anyone is home.

The question for the government is if this is all it has and this is its vision. Canadians want more, that is clear, that is within our values, but on the business side they want to see that there are clear rules. Two things businesses want are consistent rules and fair rules. Right now they are looking at government and there is a fog. I say that because there is this line that the Conservatives use over and over again, that they are for trade and New Democrats are against trade, they are for business and New Democrats are against business.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, May 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the principle of the legislation. We want to see it go to committee to be studied.

However, I want to start off my question by noting the irony of this. It is coming from the Senate. If we look at who is in the Senate and the list of people who serve on international corporations and so on, there are some who right now are having some challenges with respect to tax havens. It is a little rich that the government is depending on the Senate to bring this bill forward. I will leave the irony to everyone who is looking at it.

Canada is a laggard when it comes to transparency. In fact, Transparency International ranked Canada the worst of all G7 nations in 2011. I know that one of the Conservative members is shaking his head. He should, because Canada is the worst in terms of transparency, not according to the NDP but according to Transparency International.

My question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will the government go further than this? The G8 is coming up and we need to strengthen the EITI, which Prime Minister Cameron is pushing.

Will we actually sign on to go further than this, which is basically what happens when people get caught, and have full disclosure of Canadian extractives when they are doing business abroad?

[Citizenship and Immigration, May 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Foreign Affairs admitted Canada could and must do more in the crisis in Syria. We must do more diplomatically and we must do more to help humanitarian victims. Over 1.3 million people have been displaced and refugee camps are at the breaking point. The foreign affairs minister promised last night that he would speak to the Minister of Immigration to help with the refugee crisis and also to help reunite families.

Syrian Canadians are waiting. Where is the action?

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will abide by that.

I mentioned in my comments that we need to have more of what I call a “people first” policy when it comes to working with civil society and others on the ground, the least of which is with women.

I want to note that Nobel Laureate Jody Williams said, “in Syria, as countless women are again finding the war waged on their bodies—we are again standing by and wringing our hands”.

I note that the parliamentary secretary did mention that this is a concern. I wonder what further actions the government will take to deal with this crisis, particularly when it comes to women who are victims, and the children, as I mentioned earlier, of this horrific conflict that is happening in Syria

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, recent reports show there is the potential for an international conference. Secretary of State Kerry has just concluded meetings with his counterpart Lavrov, in Moscow, and we are hopeful that an international conference will happen.

It was also noted that there had not been, as there had been in the past, any adherence by Moscow as to what the status of Mr. Assad would be. I say that because this is a bit of a change from what the news reports. There might be other reports that we hear later. There is a sense right now that even Russia is getting concerned and fatigued with the situation in Syria.

What we must do is to be focused on what the member has underlined, that there has to be a political solution to this. Diplomacy should be ramped up and we should ensure that our friends in Russia get the message yet again that it has a role here. It has been supplying arms, everyone knows that, and if this continues, it will be even more culpable than it was before.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned some of this in my comments. In October of last year, we decided it was important to actually have the foreign affairs committee, of which I am a vice-chair, study what is happening in Syria and hear directly from people. I read some of the testimony into the record.

From that, we got some good ideas about what we should do next. We had a motion and we debated it in the House, and as she mentioned, the motion was passed unanimously. It said three things. One was to acknowledge and support the UN mission, which was already touched on by my colleague from Toronto Centre. That was Mr. Brahimi's mission. We noted that they were not going to find a peace accord tomorrow, but it was important to have UN presence there for all sorts of reasons, the least of which is for what happens when the conflict is over. It will be important to have knowledge of what is happening on the ground when the conflict is over. The second point was to have the fast-tracking of refugees. Thirdly, we said to provide more humanitarian support.

This was agreed to by the House. I simply remind the government that on two of these issues, it still needs to do more. We encourage the government to do more.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen from NGOs that there is more than can be done. I am simply making the point to the government that there is an opportunity to do more if it wishes to. I know that there are willing partners.

It is not in the spirit of the debate tonight to go hot. It is important to critique where critiques need to be made and to offer suggestions.

I know there are people who have already given a lot of money and a lot of time. We can leverage that even more. That is why we are putting forward the idea of creating this network, particularly investing with women in the Syrian women's network.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think I addressed my comments to the fact that I think we should be doing more. I acknowledge the announcements that the government has made and the money it has invested in helping refugees, et cetera, but there is more that we have to do. This is not a partisan issue. This is about our country and what we can do. That is what this debate is about. It is about informing and sharing ideas, and hopefully coming up with the next steps in terms of what we can do.

I would acknowledge that the government, particularly at the beginning, has donated and invested money in the plight of refugees. I am saying that Canadians want to do even more. Let us use that opportunity. Let us engage with Canadians and do even more. Let us understand that this conflict has taken a huge hit on women and children, and we need to look at their plight and invest with them. It sounds like the parliamentary secretary agrees with me, so I look forward to the government's response on that, as well as with the fast-tracking of refugees.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart, like many in this place, as we debate again the situation in Syria. I say “again” because we have dealt with the issue before. Some things have changed, but obviously not enough, as we have heard from our colleagues.

When we hear of the deaths of 70,000, refugee numbers of 1.5 million, 4.25 million displaced and 6.8 million in need of humanitarian assistance, it is really hard to get our heads around this.

We understand there is a desperate need for humanitarian assistance. We understand that the refugee crisis is getting worse. We understand that we have a government in Damascus that is deciding to stay put and continue with its crimes against humanity. We understand that there is a civil war that is getting worse in many ways. However, we have to understand what we can do.

All too often in our parliaments and our legislatures around the world we are given all the reasons why we cannot do things. If we just take a look at the first three months of 2013, the number of Syrian refugees more than doubled because we, seemingly, could not figure out what to do. Let us remember, this is a conflict that has been going on for a couple of years.

In January, there were around 500,000 refugees. By April, there were more than 1.3 million who fled to neighbouring countries, as we have heard. The United Nations refugee council is saying that it registers 7,000 new refugees every day. More than 440,000 Syrians have fled to Lebanon. Syrian refugees now make up more than 10% of its population.

We also know the burden that has on other countries. Therefore, what we have to do is understand what is possible. I am going to touch on some of the issues that have brought us to this point, but let us go back to last October. That is when the foreign affairs committee was seized with this issue. Frankly, it was our party that pushed to have hearings on Syria and the government agreed, which was helpful. We did a study at the foreign affairs committee because we needed to better understand from Syrian Canadians, from experts and certainly from the government, what we were doing and what we could be doing. From that study we put forward a motion to ask the government to do a couple of things. One was to deal with family reunification, to fast-track those Syrians stuck in the refugee camps who had fled the slaughter in Syria to be sponsored by family members here in Canada. The other thing we asked was to increase humanitarian support, particularly in Turkey.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who quite rightly noted that there is a burden on Jordan to take in so many refugees. It is a country that is not as well off, certainly, as Canada. He mentioned helping Lebanon as well.

However, it is important to underline here that out of that committee report came a motion that was debated in the House. We underlined the importance of Turkey. I am critical of the government for not following up on both of those suggestions because when it comes to refugees and reunification, his colleague, the Minister of Immigration, made an announcement in Turkey to suggest that we were going to take in 5,000 refugees. This was good news for many of us when we first heard it. Sadly, we found out when we looked into the announcement that it was not for Syrian refugees leaving the slaughter in Syria, it was for refugees who had already been documented from other countries.

We do have a proud tradition in this country of accommodating and helping people who are fleeing strife, be it natural disaster in Haiti, as was mentioned, conflict like Lebanon in the 1980s or the infamous stories of those who fled Southeast Asia in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have heard the minister tonight say he will talk to his colleague, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. I do not understand why the minister himself, on two occasions, did not meet with the community when asked to. I am talking about the minister's colleague, not the minister. I look forward to his following up.

However, the other thing that has to be noted in this debate tonight, going back to my comments, is that we are all seized with this issue and often paralyzed because we do not believe there is anything more we can do. This is something we can do. We have Syrian Canadian families right now who want to help their family members. Members should think of it right now as if it was their family member who fled conflict. If members could help them out, they would do it. That is all these people are asking for. That is all we are asking for. That is why people have signed the petition asking the government to do just that, to meet with members of the community and to open our doors and our hearts to people fleeing the slaughter.

We need to do more and, in the spirit of having a debate where we are focused on concrete solutions, we need to acknowledge, as in my intervention with the minister, the burden this has been particularly on children. There are UN officials who have said that children and women are on the front lines of this war.

I mentioned in October that we had committee hearings on Syria, and we heard from Syrian Canadians and from experts. We heard from Mariam Hamou, a very proud Syrian Canadian woman, and I think anyone who was at the committee will remember her testimony in particular because it was so human. As I said, sometimes it is difficult to get one's head around the numbers, but in her testimony in the committee hearings she said:

Assad's offensives on his citizens are claiming on average 150 people a day.

This was back in October. She continued:

On October 17—that's yesterday—155 people were killed. On October 16, 133 people were killed. On October 15, 100 people were killed. You get the idea here, and this is just in the past few days. The latest report is that regime forces are using barrel bombs in civilian areas, specifically on schools, killing most of the children inside. The barrel bombs are, again, not in Free Syrian Army stronghold areas, but are targeting children specifically.

I apologize that there is some vivid language here, but she went on to say:

Torture has been reported in every city and town, and down to every family. I don't want to get into the chilling details of what goes on, but I'll share with you one story that just sends chills down my spine. Women are being systematically raped in Syria, not by one, two, or three of the militia men, but by many people. After the militia men are finished raping the victim, they insert a live mouse...[into the woman] to destroy any sense of dignity that might have been left for this woman.

Children are not only dying by the hands of the regime's brutality, but by malnourishment, as food and water are becoming increasingly scarce. Food costs in Syria have gone up six times the price of what they were before the revolution. A loaf of bread is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and families are going without food at times. Babies are dying as mothers are not able to breastfeed them because of the lack of nutrition for the mothers....

That is what we are talking about. That is the human story. We heard from the minister on his visit to the refugee camp. It is clear that there is a need to do more. It is clear there are challenges, no question. I am heartened by the fact that there might be an international conference to actually end this war. However, we must be vigilant and we must do everything we can do.

With that in mind, I have spoken, as we all have, to Syrian Canadians and others, including experts. In fact, I just spoke with someone who is out of Washington today, but whose expertise is around peace, security and women, which is the issue for our century to look at. The issue is how we can ensure that women are not on the front lines of the conflict but are also involved in making sure we find peace, because all too often they are the victims and not allowed in, so to speak.

To that end, not only does the NDP want the government to fast-track family members and increase aid, particularly to countries like Turkey where we should do more, but also focus on women. To that end, New Democrats want the government to engage with the Syrian Women's Network. This is a group of women, civil society members and leaders, working to ensure they can do everything they can to help civilians right now, not only in the camps but in Syria, and to strengthen the hope that everyone had at the beginning of this two years ago that there are going to be opportunities for all.

That is something Canada can do, and we should do it in the following framework. We should do it by saying that our government will lead by engaging Syrian Canadians, those who have expertise and, as I said in my comments earlier, who have already spent their own money to help people on the ground. Some have gone into the conflict zones themselves not to wage war but to work in makeshift hospitals, deliver food aid, help kids, to do what they can with what they have the best way they can.

To that end, New Democrats want the government to have a particular focus on women, work with the Syrian Women's Network and look at putting together a network of Syrian Canadians who will be able to strengthen civil society and opportunities for a lasting political solution. Make no mistake, if tomorrow there were an end to the conflict as we see it now, it does not mean peace and stability. It means that the next phase will happen. As Canadians, we have to make sure we are doing everything we can to prepare for what the next steps are.

It is clear when we look at what happened in Iraq and even in Libya that we must ensure we are ready and prepared to help on the ground when things change, with basic things such as water and sewage, ensuring basic services are met and basic governance. I know, the minister knows and everyone in the House knows that there are Syrian Canadians who are willing and able to do that. We can work with women's organizations, the Syrian Women's Network and Syrian Canadians, coordinate their efforts, both human resources and money, to look at how we can help immediately on the ground, to strengthen the institutions that are already doing work through the UN and others, and to start looking at what Canada's role will be when this conflict ends. Every conflict ends. Every war ends. It is just a matter of when it ends. Then the question is what we do about it.

I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a fan of Churchill. During the Second World War, which my father served in overseas, in 1942, I believe it was, he was already planning for what would happen in post-war Germany. He had some of the best and the brightest looking at what needs and services would be required and who would be able to fill that role. It was because he understood that wars and conflicts end. Then the question was what to do and what one's contribution would be. The question is: What is Canada's contribution going to be?

We should look at the challenges we face, such as who is being affected by this war and the huge toll this has taken on civilians, particularly women and children, as I have underlined in my comments.

Just to give an example of what this means for women, not only are they affected by becoming refugees and having to leave their homes and take care of their children without enough resources to support them, but we have evidence that there are as many as 6,400 women who have been detained by the regime. One thousand of them are university students.

Let us remember who started this movement. This was not malicious, from outside. This was not people who picked up arms. This was a peaceful movement of young people—not entirely but primarily—who decided they wanted a different Syria. They led, in this response to the government's crackdown, by protesting peacefully, not by picking up guns, not by using any so-called terrorist methods. They simply used their passion, their hearts and their drive.

What has happened is that many of them have been killed and many of them have been detained. We understand that Syrian women and children who have been affected are targeted, as I read in this testimony. Can members imagine targeting schools? Many of us have worked as teachers or have kids, and we all grew up and went through the system. To think that someone is actually targeting a school is beyond comprehension. It is a horror. That is why I think we should be engaging to do more with those who have been engaged on the ground.

I want to finish up by saying, while the world watches what happens in Syria and wonders what else we can do, let us remember what this country has done in the past.

I remember a story of a couple who were over here in the Laurentian Mountains for a weekend. They were horrified as they watched South Asians in boats and saw the news reports. They saw that they were in peril, that they needed help, and the world was not opening its doors.

That couple came back to this city and they got in touch with the government. They held some public meetings, and they opened the minds of the government of the day, which was a Conservative government. They said we must do more. They held local meetings where people—church groups, bowling teams and others—sponsored refugees, to help those people who were on the high seas and who were being left behind.

That couple was my parents. My mother was the mayor of Ottawa at the time. It was a grassroots movement that said that as Canadians we have something to do. She called it Project 4000. It opened the doors to 4,000 Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees here in this city, and challenged every other mayor across the country to do the same.

We went from having a quota of 8,000 refugees for that year. Because of grass roots and because Canadians mobilized and said we could do something about this, it changed to 60,000. It was Flora MacDonald who was the minister who did that.

I say to the government and to Canadians that we can do more, we can do it together and we can show Syrians that we are here to help with that. We can say to the world that Canada cannot solve the problem, but we can do our bit. I think if we support refugees, if we do a little more in humanitarian support, and we decide that we are going to engage all Syrians who can help with civil society, with women, supporting women in particular, Canada will be proud of what it can do in a horrific, awful conflict.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his intervention and clarification on some points with regard to the government's actions. However, there are a couple of things I want to tie down.

I know that everyone has read the reports. I have some Security Council reports here. I will get into this a bit more, but I note the horrific toll this conflict has had on children and women. Typically, women and children are injured or are refugees as an outcome of war. However, we are now seeing that they are being strategically targeted, and I want to get the government's comment on that.

I also have a specific question about cluster munitions.

The member talked about chemical weapons. We have reports from different sources, going back to March, on the use of cluster munitions. I note that the Conservative government has not come out against the use of cluster munitions or made comment on it. I know that the government is against the use of them, but I want to know why we have not spoken out when it comes to cluster munitions in Syria.