Certainly, I think it is fair to say that all the parties in opposition are very concerned that we are about to pass legislation that would fall far short of the objectives of the treaty that Canada has signed.

I am particularly concerned that there is so much in the treaty that calls for us to take leadership. We are a long way from leadership now. We are at a position where many of our allies are concerned. We have seen other countries interpreting this convention as meaning that in order not to assist in cluster munitions there must be a specific prohibition against financial investment and contributions.

Yet, we were told earlier tonight by a Conservative member that was somehow too difficult and could not be done.

We know other countries have brought in legislation much stronger than our own, countries that are also in NATO, countries that also participate with the United States. The singular failure to at least be in the middle of the pack is grievous to all of us in the opposition benches.

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

We know that clause 11 includes far too broad a carve-out. It goes well beyond protecting Canadian troops from inadvertently violating the cluster munitions treaty. If we had used the same kind of language for interoperability that is found in the Ottawa land mine convention legislation, we would not be having this long debate now. We would all be united and proud of Canada for bringing in domestic legislation which meets the letter and spirit of the cluster munitions treaty globally.

This legislation fails to do that by having too a broad a carve-out, allowing too many operational engagements between Canada and obviously our ally, the United States, which has not yet ratified and has apparently no intention of taking the steps that any civilized country should take to eliminate cluster munitions from the face of this earth.

We have been detailed about the changes. I, personally, have put forward amendments in committee. They were all defeated. I am grateful the parliamentary secretary did bring forward the amendment to remove the word “use”, but we are allowed to invest in cluster munitions and we are allowed to participate in operations involving cluster munitions. We have failed to take the steps that were within our reach.

Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 10 years now and I have experienced many occasions where the Conservative government, in particular, has violated the spirit and intent of an agreement.

I have been the aboriginal affairs critic for most of the time since 2006, so I can talk about the spirit and intent of treaties of first nations and how consistently that spirit and intent is violated.

When I come back to general obligations under article 1 in the convention, it closes by saying that it is also prohibited to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activities prohibited by the convention. There is a spirit and intent in article 1 of the convention that surely would make it incumbent upon the government to honour the spirit and intent of the convention by working with its allies and its partners to encourage and support them to stop the use of cluster munitions.

Everything we do to undermine the convention also undermines the spirit and intent of that convention.

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

This is one of the rare times that we have seen an amendment, and it did come from the parliamentary secretary, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out. It was to remove the word “use”. However, we recognize—and there have been many examples in this debate—that in the wording, there is far too much latitude around Canadian engagement with the use of cluster munitions, and we could have used much tighter language for interoperability, as we did in the Ottawa land mines treaty.

My question to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta is this: does she believe that at this late date, when we are past the point of amendments, it is worth turning down Bill C-6 in the hope that Canada could implement a treaty that it has in fact ratified to meet its real objectives?

Jinny Jogindera Sims: Mr. Speaker, I have lived with the premise that it is never too late when the will is there. If the will exists on the part of the majority sitting on that side of the House, those kinds of changes could be made, this bill could be fixed, and it could be supported by every member in the House. …

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

The member has really cast the light for me to understand what went wrong here. I have been struggling to understand how the bill could be this bad when I believe the intentions are actually good. This goes to what the member just explained, which I had not heard before, that the course of the bill started in the wrong place. Instead of going to the Department of Foreign Affairs, it went to the Department of National Defence. That is why we have legislation before us that falls so far short of what Canadians would want of our government to end the scourge of cluster munitions.

I thank the member for that explanation. I would ask him to expand on it.

Paul Dewar: 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.

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

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.

I do not think any of us on the opposition benches who find the language of Bill C-6 objectionable are suggesting that we stop working with our ally and friend, the United States. We are asking merely that our legislation be as strong and committed to the goals of the cluster munitions treaty as other NATO partners and allies. Right now it is the weakest, and I think all of us find it shameful.

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

For my friend from London—Fanshawe, the claim has been made repeatedly in debate this evening that the exact language was used in the anti-landmines law as is used in Bill C-6. That is not correct.

Laurie Hawn: I did not say that.

Elizabeth May: That is what I heard, Mr. Speaker. If the member for Edmonton Centre could wait a moment, I have heard him say repeatedly in this House that the same language was used.

In fact, the language is very different. The language that is used in the anti-land mine convention and the law that was passed by this House, says the following:

The question would be, if I were able to put a question to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, is that if the same language were good enough for the anti-land mine convention, why did we not use that language in the cluster munitions law?

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

One of the places that I think is really offensive is that many of our allies have decided that, as an interpretative statement, in interpreting this part of the convention, subclause (c) of the operative section, that we are prohibited from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone to engage in any activity prohibited by a state party under this convention. Many of our allies have concluded that investing in the production of cluster munitions would offend that section and have specifically taken action to ban investment. Bill C-6 would fail to do that.

We need to also focus on those places where it was so obvious we could have made changes, and refused to do so, to strengthen this legislation to make it fulfill the spirit of the convention.

Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member from the Green Party, a party of two. They show up night after night, just to take part in this debate, unlike that side and that end, who have missed 111 opportunities to speak in the House of Commons since we have extended the hours.

To answer my colleague’s question, she is absolutely right. There are a lot of things missing in the bill. There are a lot of things we could do to prevent kids, children, soldiers and civilians from being killed or injured by these bombs.

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

I agree with everything my hon. colleague said. I would ask him whether he does not agree that we should have implemented treaty language in Bill C-6.

Dany Morin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is a good one.

When we make amendments to a bill, we must indeed put them in the right place and have the right definition for them. If we were talking about a specific amendment, I could answer my colleague’s question in greater depth. However, she reminds us of the importance of the principle of the convention.

Canada has a strange relationship with the convention it has signed. Of the 113 countries that have signed the convention, only 84 have ratified it. Canada signed the convention on December 3, 2008, and the implementing legislation was introduced in the House of Commons on December 15, 2012. Even though the government has taken some action, it is deplorable for it to be trying get out of it with regard to clause 11.

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

For a smaller party, such as the Green Party, the Bloc, and for any independent members here, every time that bills are moved to time allocation, and this is the 73rd time, it guarantees that no one in our position will have a chance to speak in debate. This is a small matter for the rest of the House, but it matters consequentially to my constituents because they want to hear what I have to say about the cluster munitions bill. I worked very hard going before committee, without being a member of committee, to put forward multiple amendments that were rejected. We can do better as a country. We can do better and not be one of those countries that is dragged into the cluster munitions treaty with the weakest implementing legislation of any of our allies. We can do better.

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