+   *    +     +     
About Us 
The Issues 
Our Research Products 
Order Publications 
Multimedia 
Press Room 
Resources for Monitor Researchers 
ARCHIVES HOME PAGE 
    >
Landmine Monitor
 
Table of Contents
Country Reports
Download PDF of country response to Human Rights Watch letter.
Canada

Canada

Canada signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Oslo on 3 December 2008. In a February 2009 letter to Human Rights Watch, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, “Canadian officials are preparing the documentation so that Cabinet can consider ratification at the earliest possible date.” The letter noted that all necessary domestic legislation must be in place before ratification can take place.[1]

Canada is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), but has yet to ratify Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War. Canada has been an active participant in the CCW work on cluster munitions in recent years.

Cluster Munition Ban Policy

Despite Canada’s long-standing leadership in banning antipersonnel landmines—launching what became known as the Ottawa Process in 1996 leading to the creation of the Ottawa Convention (Mine Ban Treaty) in 1997, and sustained high-level promotion of full implementation and universalization of the treaty since then—Canada was slow to embrace any international action on cluster munitions, and even more so the Oslo Process to prohibit them. NGOs in particular found this disconcerting, since the Oslo Process was clearly modeled after the Ottawa Process, with close cooperation of NGOs and a core group of progressive governments, and the draft text of what became the Convention of Cluster Munitions was in large part drawn from the Mine Ban Treaty.

In November 2006, during the CCW Third Review Conference, Canada did not support a proposal for a mandate to negotiate in the CCW a legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions “that addresses the humanitarian concerns posed by cluster munitions.”[2] When that mandate was rejected Canada did not endorse a joint declaration by 25 states calling for an agreement that would prohibit the use of cluster munitions “within concentrations of civilians,” prohibit the use of cluster munitions that “pose serious humanitarian hazards because they are for example unreliable and/or inaccurate,” and require destruction of stockpiles of such cluster munitions.[3] At the end of the Review Conference, Norway announced that it would start an independent process outside the CCW to negotiate a cluster munition treaty and invited other governments to join.

On 7 December 2006, a motion was introduced into the Canadian Parliament which read, “[I]n the opinion of the House, the government should ban the production, use or sale of cluster bomb munitions and work towards an international treaty banning the production, use or sale of these weapons.”[4] On 2 February 2007, Members of Parliament asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if Canada would attend the initial Oslo Process conference, noting that as “the Norwegians are using the Ottawa Convention on the banning of anti-personnel landmines as a model for this effort…it would be an international embarrassment for Canada not to attend.”[5] On 13 February 2007, in response to a similar query from Mines Action Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay wrote that Canada would attend, noting that “Canada is deeply concerned about the humanitarian effects as well as the negative impact upon development of certain types of cluster munitions, namely those having very high failure rates.”[6]

Canada attended the first Oslo Process meeting in Oslo on 22–23 February, and subsequently participated in all three of the international diplomatic conferences to develop the convention text in Lima, Wellington, and Vienna, as well as the formal negotiations in Dublin in May 2008.

Canada never joined the small “Core Group” of states that took responsibility for the Oslo Process and the development of the Convention on Cluster Munitions outside of traditional diplomatic fora. Rather, Canada was most often associated with a group of states that were participating in the Oslo Process only reluctantly and with serious reservations about both the process and the draft convention text. Canada was prepared to exempt broad categories of cluster munitions from a prohibition, but, on the other hand, was a strong advocate on victim assistance issues throughout the process.

At the Oslo conference, Canada stated its view that not all cluster munitions needed to be prohibited.[7] Canada joined 45 other nations in endorsing Oslo Declaration, which committed them to conclude in 2008 an international instrument prohibiting cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

On 1 March 2007, at the initiative of Mines Action Canada, the Canadian Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development held a hearing on cluster munitions and the Oslo Process. Representatives from Mines Action Canada, the Canadian Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Landmine Action gave testimonies, calling on Canada to enact a moratorium on the use, production or export of cluster munitions and highlighting the lack of coherence between funding clearance, but not taking preventative action.[8]

At the Lima conference in May 2007, Canada expressed support for work on cluster munitions in both the Oslo Process and the CCW.[9] It argued that accuracy and reliability should be the criteria by which the acceptability of cluster munitions should be assessed, while stressing that testing should be based on conditions that reflect actual combat environments.[10] Canada announced that it was in the process of destroying its stockpiles of cluster munitions and had set a 99% reliability criterion for all cluster munitions it would acquire in the future.[11]

Canada made a series of proposals during the Lima conference based on lessons learned in the Mine Ban Treaty context. Canada called for the establishment of “the highest standards with respect to victim assistance, beginning by acknowledging that although direct victims suffer the most, their families and communities also suffer.” Canada stated that, “We must then seek to provide the highest level of social, economic, and psychological rehabilitation to restore survivors to health and to reintegrate them into their communities as whole productive members.”[12] Canada also was a vocal supporter of strong provisions for international cooperation and assistance.[13]

On 13 June 2007, another motion was introduced into the Canadian Parliament calling for the government “to demonstrate a leadership role within the international community to work towards an international treaty banning the unhumanitarian use, production, and distribution of harmful cluster munitions which threaten innocent civilians around the world.”[14]

In November 2007, at the CCW Meeting of the States Parties, Canada argued strongly in favor of a legally-binding protocol on cluster munitions within the CCW. It expressed concern that the mandate finally agreed by the CCW “to negotiate a proposal” could “waste a lot of time” if there was not clarity about the outcome being sought. [15]

At the Vienna conference in December 2007, Canada again applied lessons learned in the Mine Ban Treaty, calling for specific language on risk education, for the prioritization of clearance in areas with the greatest impact on civilian populations, and for recognition that the primary responsibility for clearance rests with affected states, provided they could expect to receive assistance.[16] Canada called for a separate and strong article on victim assistance, with assistance extended to the families and communities of victims, based on human rights based standards and a non-discriminatory approach.[17]

Canada also prioritized the issue of “interoperability” (joint military operations with states not party). Although the relevant language in the draft text was virtually identical to the Mine Ban Treaty, Canada said that the proposed prohibition on assistance “presents substantial and legitimate concerns for any state participating, or planning to participate, in multinational military operations involving a non-party state. Such interoperability concerns are not simply a NATO issue. Instead they may arise in the context of any military operation, including [UN] Chapter VII peace enforcement operations.”[18]

At the Wellington conference in February 2008, Canada frequently supported the proposals put forth by the so-called like-minded group—proposals that the CMC sharply criticized as weakening the draft text, particularly on the issues of definition (exceptions to the prohibition), a transition period before key obligations (including no use) took effect, and interoperability. Canada stepped up its efforts to include provisions addressing interoperability in the treaty text, and proposed a transition period during which the prohibition on assistance would not be in effect. [19] At the closing, Canada associated itself with a statement on behalf of the like-minded group declaring dissatisfaction with the conference as it felt different opinions and views had not been taken into account in a balanced way.[20] Canada made its own statement severely criticizing the conduct of NGOs.[21] However, Canada subscribed to the Wellington Declaration, indicating its intention to participate fully in the formal negotiations in Dublin on the basis of the Wellington draft text.

At the Dublin Diplomatic Conference in May 2008, Canada was no longer arguing for a broad exception to the prohibition of cluster munitions with self-destruct devices, but instead said that it was open to a series of criteria such as sensor-fuzing, which would limit the effects of submunitions to their intended targets, and electrical fail-safe mechanisms, which would minimize the problem of duds. Canada insisted that any weapon excluded from prohibition must “be both accurate and reliable” and that the “onus is on States” to ensure that this is the case in actual use as well as in testing.[22]

Canada was most vocal about the issue of interoperability, stating that it was “absolutely adamant” that provisions on interoperability be included that would ensure that it was not prevented from engaging in military operations with states not party to the future convention.[23] Canada stated that interoperability “is the most critical for us and is a red-line issue for whether it could join the Convention.”[24]

In the end, Canada joined in the consensus adoption of the convention. In its closing remarks, Canada stated that the right balance had been struck in the convention, particularly regarding interoperability. Canada said the provisions on interoperability were not a loophole, but instead an essential element of legal protection to accommodate situations in combined operations which may be beyond their control. “If these circumstances are ever obtained, we believe they will be rare...because we are in the midst of a major paradigm shift on how the world views cluster munitions,” it said. Canada pledged to actively discourage the use of cluster munitions by others, to move forward with the implementation of the convention and generate the resources to “get the job done” with regard to stockpile destruction, clearance, and the provision of assistance.[25]

On the final day of the Dublin conference, Mines Action Canada launched the “People’s Treaty” in partnership with the CMC, with the objective of enabling ordinary people to also “sign” the treaty.[26]

At the signing conference in Oslo in December 2008, Canada expressed its determination to work with other states and civil society to tackle the problems that cluster munitions cause and stated that it would seek to ratify the convention as soon as domestic measures could be put in place.[27]

In November 2008, when negotiations on cluster munitions in the CCW were scheduled to conclude, Canada was not one of the 26 states that issued a joint statement expressing their opposition to the weak draft text on a possible CCW Protocol on cluster munitions. Canada indicated it was an unacceptable step back from the standards set by the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[28] After CCW States Parties failed to reach an agreement, Canada was among the few states that adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Dublin that appeared to have an interest in continued work on cluster munitions in the CCW.[29] Canada insisted that this work should take the form of negotiations on a legally-binding protocol, because cluster munition victims deserved nothing less.[30]

Use, Production, Stockpiling, and Transfer

Canada is not believed to have ever used or exported cluster munitions. The company Bristol Aerospace Limited was once listed as a producer of the CRV-7 70mm unguided air-to-surface rocket containing nine M73 submunitions. However, the company provided information to the Department of National Defence that it has only produced the rocket, and never produced the cluster warhead (which contains the submunitions) for the CRV-7, indicating this warhead is only produced by General Dynamics, a United States company.[31]

Canada has stockpiled two types of cluster munitions. It imported Rockeye cluster bombs from the US. Canada started destroying the Rockeyes prior to 2005 and had destroyed the entire stock by early 2007.[32]

Canadian Forces also obtained from the US M483A1 155mm artillery projectiles containing 88 M42/M46 dual purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) submunitions.[33] These projectiles were removed from service (though when is not known) and are awaiting destruction.

Canada stated in February 2007 that the 155mm projectiles are “in the process of being destroyed.”[34] In January 2008, the Minister of National Defence said that the destruction task “is currently beyond the capability of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Accordingly, the Government is seeking a commercial company that has the technical expertise to do the work. I would add that achieving this is a priority under our demilitarization program.”[35] In February 2009, Canada said that it “is committed to destroying its complete stockpile of cluster munitions” and “is in the process of destroying stocks” of the M483A1 projectiles.[36]


[1] Letter from Paul Hong, Director of Policy, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 20 February 2009.

[2] Proposal for a Mandate to Negotiate a Legally-Binding Instrument that Addresses the Humanitarian Concerns Posed by Cluster Munitions, Presented by Austria, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Sweden, Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the CCW, Geneva, CCW/CONF.III/WP.1, Geneva, 25 October 2006.

[3] Declaration on Cluster Munitions, Third Review Conference of the States Parties to the CCW, CCW/CONF.III/WP.18, Geneva, 17 November 2006.

[4] Notice Paper No. 94, “Private Members’ Notices of Motions, M-265, Mr. Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca), 7 December 2006,” 8 December 2006, www.parl.gc.ca.

[5] Statement by Hon. Bryon Wilfert, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Parliamentary Record, Hansard, (Ottawa: 1 February 2007) 39:1, 101, www.parl.gc.ca.

[6] Letter from Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 13 February 2007.

[7] Statements of Canada, Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, 22–23 February 2007. Notes by CMC/ WILPF.

[8] Parliamentary Record, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, 1 March 2007, www.parl.gc.ca.

[9] Statement of Canada, Lima Conference on Cluster Munitions, 23 May 2007. Notes by CMC/WILPF.

[10] Statement of Canada, Session on Definitions, Lima Conference, 24 May 2007. Notes by CMC/WILPF.

[11] Statement of Canada, Closing Statement, Lima Conference, 25 May 2007. Notes by CMC/WILPF.

[12] Statement of Canada, Session on Victim Assistance, Lima Conference, 23 May 2007. Unofficial transcription by WILPF.

[13] Canada stated, “We believe that it is important to establish discrete funds and in time fully mainstream and integrate various elements of action on cluster munitions into all relevant plans and sectors… If necessary, affected countries should request and expect the international community to assist.” Statement of Canada, Session on International Cooperation and Assistance, Lima Conference, 24 May 2007. Unofficial transcription by WILPF.

[14] Notice Paper No. 171, “Private Members’ Notices of Motions, M-351, Mr. Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul), June 13, 2007,” 14 June 2007, www.parl.gc.ca.

[15] Statement of Canada, 2007 Meeting of the States Parties to the CCW, Geneva, 13 November 2007. Notes by WILPF.

[16] Statement of Canada, Session on Clearance and General Obligations, Vienna Conference on Cluster Munitions, 6 December 2007.

[17] Statement of Canada, Session on Victim Assistance, Vienna Conference, 6 December 2007.

[18] Statement of Canada, General Statement, Vienna Conference, 5 December 2007.

[19] Statement of Canada, Informal Discussions on Interoperability, Wellington Conference on Cluster Munitions, 21 February 2008.

[20] Statement of France on behalf of like-minded countries, Closing Plenary, Wellington Conference, 22 February 2008, www.mfat.govt.nz.

[21] Canada especially objected to NGO criticism that Canada’s concern over interoperability was directly related to pressure from the US. A Canadian delegate stated that NGOs’ “currency in this process is diminished by some of the tactics employed to influence the process. Countries such as my own, and several close allies have been vilified in press interviews and in press releases produced by the CMC.… We have been accused of quote trying to undermine an international treaty on cluster munitions endquote. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such accusations are unfounded and unfair. In my view, such tactics are demeaning and counterproductive. They tarnish the credibility of your organizations and do a disservice to the noble cause you wish to advance.” Statement of Canada, Closing Statement, Wellington Conference, 22 February 2008.

[22] Canada expressed skepticism about proposals for criteria based on weight and numbers, objecting to the apparently arbitrary aspect of where lines are drawn in such an approach. Statements of Canada, Committee of the Whole, Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions, 19 May 2008; Statements of Canada, Informal Discussions on Definitions, Dublin Diplomatic Conference, 20–21 May 2008. Notes by Landmine Action.

[23] Statement of Canada, Committee of the Whole, Dublin Diplomatic Conference, 19 May 2008. Notes by Landmine Action.

[24] Statement of Canada, Informal Discussions on Interoperability, Dublin Diplomatic Conference, 22 May 2008. Notes by Landmine Action.

[25] Statement of Canada, Closing Statement, Dublin Diplomatic Conference, 30 May 2008. Notes by Landmine Action; and Summary Record of the Conference, Fourth Session of the Plenary and Closing Ceremony, 30 May 2008, Dublin Diplomatic Conference, CCM/SR/4, 18 June 2008. Oddly, three days earlier, on 27 May 2008, the government stated in response to questions posed by Sen. Elizabeth Hubley, “Canada currently regards cluster munitions as lawful weapons if they are used in accordance with international humanitarian law, which prohibits the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Canada has expressed concern about the impact unreliable and inaccurate cluster munitions have on civilians.” “Response to questions raised by Hon. Elizabeth Hubley on April 16 and May 14, 2008,” Debates of the Senate, 2nd Session, 39th Parliament, Hansard, (Ottawa: 27 May 2008) Vol. 144, Issue 6, www.parl.gc.ca. .

[26] Nationally, Mines Action Canada launched the People’s Treaty on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on 28 May 2008, at an event co-sponsored by Members of Parliament (MPs) Alexa McDonough, Johanna DesChamps, and Mark Eyking and Sen. Elizabeth Hubley. It was signed by 129 MPs and Senators that day. Mines Action Canada first created a People’s Treaty for the Ottawa Convention in 1997. Mines Action Canada, “Help Ban Cluster Bombs Now!,” undated, www.minesactioncanada.org.

[27] Statement of Canada, Convention on Cluster Munitions Signing Conference, Oslo, 3 December 2008. Notes by Landmine Action. Amb. Jillian Stirk, Canada’s Ambassador to Norway, signed on behalf of Canada.

[28] Statement delivered by Costa Rica on behalf of Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Croatia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Indonesia, Ireland, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, Uruguay, and Venezuela, Fifth 2008 Session of the CCW GGE on Cluster Munitions, Geneva, 5 November 2008.

[29] Statement of Canada, 2008 Meeting of the States Parties to the CCW, Geneva, 13 November 2008. Notes by Landmine Action.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Information provided to Human Rights Watch by Department of National Defence representatives on the Canadian Delegation to the CCW Group of Governmental Experts on Cluster Munitions, Geneva, November 2007.

[32] Letter from Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mines Action Canada, 13 February 2007. The Minister of National Defence said on 15 February 2007, “We have recently destroyed our entire stockpile” of Rockeyes. Email from Gordon J. O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, to Joanna Santa Barbara, 15 February 2007. In January 2005, an official wrote that “the Canadian Forces have determined that, for operational and financial reasons, its inventory of Rockeye bombs should be reduced. As a result, the CF has destroyed 80 per cent of its total inventory of the weapon…. The decision to retain a residual stock is currently under review.” Facsimile from Ann Pollack, Counsellor, Canadian Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, to Pax Christi Netherlands, 13 January 2005.

[33] Facsimile from Ann Pollack, Canadian Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, to Pax Christi Netherlands, 13 January 2005.

[34] Email from Gordon J. O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, to Joanna Santa Barbara, 15 February 2007. Minister O’Connor said the same thing in a letter to Mines Action Canada dated 19 July 2007.

[35] Letter from Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, 25 January 2008.

[36] Letter from Paul Hong, Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 20 February 2009.