Bill C-6 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act
An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 25, 2013
- Debated in principleOct. 25, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 19, 2014
- Passed the second chamberNov. 5, 2014
- Became lawNov. 5, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 25 October 2013, the Minister of Foreign Affairs introduced Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions (Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-6 implements Canada’s commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In particular, it establishes prohibitions and offences for certain activities involving cluster munitions, explosive submunitions and explosive bomblets.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
25% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (10,195 words introduced, 10,084 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with targeted edits to the military cooperation exceptions. Permission to use cluster munitions in combined operations was dropped while a new transport allowance was inserted.
- Removed the word 'using' from the exception for personnel on attachment or exchange.
Before: “(c) using, acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet, or moving that munition from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it, while on attachment, exchange or secondment, or serving under sim”
After: “tion, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet, or moving that munition from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it, while on attachment, exchange or secondment, or serving under similar arrangement, with the armed forces of that state.”
- Added a new subsection allowing transport of cluster munitions during combined operations.
After: “(2) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition, explosive”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
Definitions use fixed weights and objective categories, but the core prohibition is undercut by repeated subjective exemptions. Ministers decide exemptions based on their opinion and chosen conditions, creating wide room for argument.
Open to argument
“on any conditions that he or she considers appropriate”
This phrase gives the minister unfettered choice over terms of any exemption.“if it would not be an offence for that other person to commit that act”
The exception hinges on a hypothetical legal conclusion about another actor, inviting prolonged disputes.
Clear-cut
“weighing less than 20 kg”
A numerical limit supplies a clear, objective boundary for explosive bomblets and submunitions.“removing all explosive substances”
The deactivation exception rests on a concrete physical act rather than an assessment of risk or purpose.
Discretion. Ministers may issue exemptions for training, destruction, or military cooperation on any conditions they select and may delegate those powers, leaving the scope of permitted conduct largely to official discretion and future regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The many subjective standards and broad exceptions could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter section 7.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of breaching section 6 would struggle to show the conduct fell outside one of the numerous discretionary or military-cooperation exceptions.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.