Foreign Affairs committee  It's bad for your reputation, yes. It reduces your moral authority.

Foreign Affairs committee  Well, I think it would be a very bad example, because you would have legislated for the treaty but put in exceptions that virtually nullified the treaty. I think it is a bad precedent, bad practice, bad parliamentary practice. I also think, and I'm sorry if I'm impertinent in saying this, that it's contrary to Canada's tradition of well over 60 years.

Foreign Affairs committee  There are two points there. The first point is that the United States had 600,000 troops in Vietnam and was beaten. They're not going to put an army on the mainland of Asia ever again. We might have a war with China, and if they side absolutely with Japan, that's highly likely.

Foreign Affairs committee  They really rely on article 21.3 in a very effective way, and they're happy with that. Their forces are small and their chance of operating in a cluster munitions environment are even less than Canada or Australia's, but I can't see why we shouldn't all rely on 21.3. There's very little moral authority in the world and the point I made, in a different way a little earlier, is that through much of the post-war period Canada has been a moral voice in the world and one that has, I think, done a great deal of good.

Foreign Affairs committee  My experience with the United States precedes being prime minister, because I was army minister and defence minister during the unhappy Vietnam era. It is quite simply that the United States does not respect people who meekly—or whatever way one wants to put it—accept or accede to U.S. wishes or requests.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes. I would agree.

Foreign Affairs committee  Just briefly, I can't recall and maybe never read the resolution in 2003, but in trying to advance the premises of the convention, are we going to say that the combined persuasive powers of Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and Australia could not persuade the United States that they also should join this convention, because there are plenty of generals in the United States who would say that this is military nonsense, that it's a most indiscriminate weapon, a weapon that angers civilians.

Foreign Affairs committee  Well, I do, yes. It's the government's job to work for Parliament.

Foreign Affairs committee  I wouldn't have thought that really is the case, and article 21, part 3, I believe gives all the powers that are needed to enable reasonable cooperation with a non-state party. But what's the point of ratifying a convention and then putting so many exemptions in it that you're really destroying the purpose of the convention?

Foreign Affairs committee  Our legislation is far from ideal. It does not go as far as your legislation. But the governments that listen to generals don't always listen wisely. If President Johnson had listened to the CIA analysts in relation to Vietnam, for example, that war would probably have ended much earlier.

Foreign Affairs committee  Yes. It is because of clause 11, which I would like to see withdrawn in its entirety. I don't think it's necessary, for reasons of the powers under article 21. When you look at clause 11, it gives power to direct, to authorize, even to request the use of—acquiring, possessing, transporting, and endangering.

Foreign Affairs committee  Well, my grandfather came from Nova Scotia.

Foreign Affairs committee  Do I?

Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for making time available for me to speak with you briefly. I asked my office to send over a press article that appeared in 2011, at a time when Australia was passing cluster bomb ratification legislation. I hope you have copies of that because it will save me from going back to it, and I think the arguments there are relevant to what Canada is doing at the present time.