We had a fairly unfortunate debate on a previous occasion in this place where there was what I tend to call a dialogue of the deaf. Some MPs were claiming that because Bill C-6 was very weak, and, in my view, unacceptably weak, the current administration did not care about getting rid of cluster munitions or about the children who had been injured by them. I reject that totally. I know that the hon. member and everyone in the House do not want cluster munitions to be used.

I want to preface my question for the parliamentary secretary by saying that I accept everything he has said. This bill is supposed to implement a cluster munitions treaty, which means that Canada is on record as being opposed to the use of cluster munitions.

My questions are very specific.

First, why has the administration failed to take the steps that should have been taken in this bill, as our other allies have done, to ensure that investment in cluster munitions is specifically prohibited.

Second, when the interoperability sections were created, why was the same language not used as is in the Ottawa land mines treaty bill, which is much more restrictive and does not allow as many loopholes as does the language we find in this legislation?

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a couple of questions and hopefully I have enough time to respond to them.

One reason we do not use the term “investment” is because it is seen as too broad. The convention is written in a particular language and each country then has to put it into the language of its legal system in order to make it fully applicable. The word “investment” is not used because it is a broad term. It would be covered, as I mentioned earlier, under things such as counselling, aiding and abetting. Those are wrapped up in that. We are not permitting people to invest in cluster munitions, and I think the member opposite can be comfortable with that position.

In terms of the Ottawa convention, these are two very different treaties. One of the differences lies, in a practical sense, in the way that the munitions are used tactically in operations. This one is used in a wide variety of situations, typically planned and unplanned. If we had adopted the exact approach of the Ottawa convention, it certainly would have undermined the Canadian Forces’ ability to effectively participate in joint military operations, interoperability and those kinds of things.

We did not believe that we should risk our national security and defence interests. We think this provides a good balance. It provides the leadership that Canada insists we show to the world in wanting to get rid of these munitions. At the same time, it allows us the interoperability that we need with our partners.

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Once the video was on Youtube, and subsequently discussed on every TV news show, Wilks’ website posted a statement of complete support for C-38.

The rally, amazingly well attended, was a boost to us as we went back into the House. It was the last time I saw daylight until Friday morning. The rally’s placards called for ‘13 heroes.’ If the search for heroes is defined by Conservative MPs voting for C-38 amendments, then there are none in Ottawa. However, that is not the case.

David Wilks was attacked in the media for caving, for failing to challenge the Prime Minister directly, despite his clear integrity and unhappiness with the ‘system.’ His statements, despite capitulation and retraction, constituted a kind of heroism in a system where everyone seems to be afraid of earning the Prime Minister’s wrath.

Currently, Ottawa is in the throes of oppression. Scientists are muzzled, but why don’t they defy bosses and speak out anyway? They are afraid of losing their jobs. Some in industry have told me they avoid public criticism of the Prime Minister because they have children working in the civil service. They are afraid for their children’s jobs. Reporters have been cowed by higher ups in their media corporations telling them to lay off criticizing the PM. They are afraid for their jobs (several reporters have lost their jobs for offending the PMO). Little wonder the members of Harper’s caucus are silent. They know from Helena Guergis’ experience just how painful, and complete, banishment can be.

I want to celebrate people of integrity who lost much by refusing to be silenced. Conservative MPs who stood up to the Prime Minister constitute a short list, and only one is still in the Conservative Caucus.

Former Nova Scotia MP Bill Casey stood on principle and voted against the 2008 budget due to the fact it violated the oil revenue-sharing contract called the Atlantic Accord. He was thrown from caucus. Casey is a man of integrity who paid a big price, but he is not the only one. MP Garth Turner was also thrown from the Conservative Party when he refused to stop blogging on issues that concerned him in 2007.

Sometimes bravery in the Conservative ranks comes from refusing to vote. Albertan James Rajotte, and Ontario MPs Royale Galipeau and Pat Davidson refused to stand with their colleagues to vote that asbestos is safe. Braver to be in the room and refuse to vote, than avoid voting by not being in the House – as a number of Conservatives did.

Speaking out against Harper’s agenda is difficult even for retired MPs. Full marks to the two Progressive Conservative Fisheries Ministers Tom Siddon and John Fraser. They signed the joint letter, with Liberal former ministers Herb Dhaliwal and David Anderson, condemning the gutting of the Fisheries Act in C-38. Former Conservative MP Bob Mills, of Red Deer, was heroic agreeing to speak out to denounce the loss of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy in a press conference I organized against C-38.

The very brave are those who stood on principle to support good public policy only to be fired, forced to quit or have careers stall. The following is a partial list, a brief reminder of people who continue to live without the jobs and careers they deserve.

• The former Deputy Minister of Statistics Canada, Munir Sheikh, who resigned on principle one year ago when his Minister, Tony Clement, claimed that no one in the bureaucracy had warned him that cancelling the Long Form Census would be a huge mistake. He had warned the Minister and he could not live with the lie.
• Linda Keen, former head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, fired for insisting on nuclear safety upgrades at Chalk River.
• Richard Colvin, the diplomat who testified to the violations of international law in the transfer of Afghan detainees. He was berated as a Taliban stooge by the Conservatives.
• Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has found that merely doing his job–providing fiscal updates to Parliamentarians–has earned the PM’s wrath. He announced that he will not stay on beyond his first term.

Meanwhile, he has warned the Prime Minister that he will go to court to force release of budgetary information he believes Parliamentarians need, unless it is released before the House resumes

The Search Goes On

So many people in Saanich-Gulf Islands, and on the Coast in general, are active and engaged. With what remains of the summer, can you contact a friend or relative living in a Conservative-held riding?

Stephen Harper is planning a second omnibus bill to implement Budget 2012 for the fall. We need to urge Conservative Members of Parliament to push back and refuse to support a repeat version of C-38. We need more heroes.

The post The Search for Heroes appeared first on Elizabeth May.