Foreign Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

We will proceed to a recorded division, please, on CPC-4.3 as amended.

(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 9, yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 7)

We now proceed to amendment NDP-4 on clause 7.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my friend Mr. Anandasangaree's bringing up the importance of making sure that Canada stays onside with the conventions. In fact, we are currently in violation of the convention. Back in 2013, the NDP and the Liberals fought very hard to have section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation fixed. In fact, Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critic at the time, said that—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

On a point of order, and with apologies to my colleague, Mr. Green, I just want to make sure: Did we vote on the previous clause?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

We don't need to vote on clause 6. Okay. That's perfect.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm on NDP-6, am I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You're on NDP-4.

Yes, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Green, with your indulgence, I just want to bring up an issue.

We voted on CPC-4.2. I believe that passed. I just want to get clarity from our legislative clerk in terms of the coherence of the legislation when CPC-4.2 passed and CPC-4.3 was defeated. I think the intention was that they would both be passed.

Perhaps the clerk could give us some clarity on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes. Go ahead.

[Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, CPC-4.2 referred to proposed section 4.1, which would not exist in the act.

There are two ways of doing it. Either you can do it at report stage to remove that part of the bill, or you can do it by unanimous consent now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That's excellent. Thank you.

Mr. Green, it's back to you.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just for the record, this is pertaining to NDP‑6. We have pulled NDP-4 and NDP-5.

I will start again, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. This is talking about ensuring that Canada adheres to the conventions that are before us. Back in 2013, the NDP and the Liberals fought very hard to have section 11 of Canada's cluster munitions legislation fixed. Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critic at the time, said, “[W]hen we sign international agreements, it's important that we live up to our signature. It's important that the legislation we adopt does not undermine the treaty we negotiated and signed on to and accepted.”

This amendment, NDP‑6, is the exact same amendment that Liberal Marc Garneau introduced to the foreign affairs committee in 2013, when they were considering the prohibition of cluster munitions act. Of course, Marc Garneau, as you know, served in Canada's armed forces. He was a strong opponent of section 11 in Canada's legislation, as was Bob Rae. In fact, all Liberals at the time, including Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Freeland, Mr. Dion and Mr. McKay, were strong opponents of section 11.

We've taken the exact same language here that the Liberals put forward then, and importantly, this is also the same language that you will find in Canada's legislation on landmines, which we can all agree sets an important precedent. I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should any Canadian ever order the use of or even transport cluster munitions.

This amendment would allow Canadians to participate in joint operations with non-party states.

Here's what Mr. Garneau said back in 2013.

We in the Liberal Party have stated that our preferred policy would be for Canada to insist that cluster bombs not be used at all in multinational operations that Canada is a participant in. But we accept the fact that the Canadian Forces may end up working with other countries that do use cluster munitions. In these cases, we believe the appropriate policy is to inform our allies that Canada will not participate in the use of cluster munitions, while simultaneously protecting our soldiers. We understand the need to protect our soldiers from legal prosecution for working with other countries.

The words “active assistance”, we believe, accomplish this...by making it clear that the Canadian Forces cannot knowingly or intentionally assist in the use of cluster munitions. But they are protected from prosecution should they unknowingly or unintentionally assist in the use of these munitions.

Further on, Mr. Garneau also said:

We don't want Canadians to use these cluster munitions, but we do want to protect them in combined operations with countries that may use them.

As New Democrats at this table here today, we believe that fixing this loophole in the act would finally make Canada's legislation consistent with the convention and with the opinions of over 100 other countries, including many of our NATO allies, as we've heard clearly from witnesses.

In 2013 and 2014, the Liberals argued strongly to fix section 11. Marc Garneau wrote an op-ed in The Globe and Mail that it needed to be fixed. Bob Rae gave strong speeches in the House against it, and at the third reading, in 2014, the Liberals voted against the unamended bill, then Bill C-6, with Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland, Marc Garneau, Stéphane Dion, John McKay and other Liberals all voting against this. The objections were over this exact clause.

This is the first opportunity in nine years to fix this legislation. As we heard from Ambassador Rae, he has not changed his position that this clause is wrong. Many Liberals, I think, would feel the same.

Every expert witness who testified to this wants to see this fixed—Earl Turcotte, who negotiated the treaty for Canada; Alex Neve; Farida Deif.

Cluster munitions are banned for a reason. The humanitarian impacts of cluster munitions are horrendous. Canadians should not use them.

Our committee can make this choice today and fix the problem that could have been fixed nine years ago.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

However, I just wanted to point out that clause 5 of Bill C-281 amends the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to prohibit a person from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the Act. The amendment seeks to remove the various exemptions provided for in section 11 of the act. This is a new concept not envisioned in the bill when it was adopted by the House at second reading and not related to the prohibition from investing in an entity that has contravened certain provisions of the act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states this on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, and for the above-stated reason, the amendment introduces a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, I thank you for your thoughtful response to my intervention, Mr. Chair, but I respectfully disagree with your ruling on the matter, given the importance of this particular clause. At this time, I will challenge the chair's decision and would like to ask that this opinion be put to the committee for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We will proceed to a recorded division, please.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 2)

Thank you. Shall clause 7 carry?

(Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

I'll go back to clause 2. We'll debate on NDP-1.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, there were some technical issues with the package sent yesterday. The correct amendment ends in 578. It is considered to be in scope by the clerk, and it does what we were trying to do with the original NDP-1. It includes a list but with specific criteria, and it adds a description of the Government of Canada's communications with the families of prisoners of conscience and of its consultations with civil society on matters of human rights. That was something we had heard clearly from the witnesses was needed.

It also now defines prisoners of conscience, which was also an issue for us. We understand that there have been discussions among the parties about the language for a subamendment, and we are open to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague from the NDP.

I have a subamendment to propose. In light of some further discussions, the subamendment I will propose verbally is not identical, though it is quite similar to the one that was distributed in advance.

The subamendment I'm proposing is similar to reference number 12363478. It seeks to do a number of things. It seeks to require the government to maintain a list of the names of prisoners of conscience. It seeks to replace “Minister” with “government” in one place in terms of the reporting obligations. It also seeks to provide broad redaction powers to the minister in the context of this report in a way that would address situations when the government is of the view that the security of the prisoner or the advancement of human rights require that names not be disclosed.

The amendment is as follows. First, in line 13 on page 1, we'd replace the word “Minister” with “government”. Instead of looking just at the actions taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it would look at the actions taken by the government in general. We think that's reasonable, because, to be fair, there will be ministers other than the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will do work on human rights in the context of other issues and other engagements.

The other changes are generally in the text of the reference number I read. They are, namely, that motion NDP-1, proposing to amend clause 2 by replacing line 12 on page 1 to line 2 on page 2, be amended by adding the following after subparagraph 10(4)(b)(i):

(i.1) the names of the prisoners of conscience,

adding the following after subsection (4):

(4.1) In preparing the list referred to in paragraph (4)(b), the Minister must make all reasonable efforts to consult with family members or representatives of the prisoners of conscience and may decide not to include certain information in the list if a person consulted by the Minister requests that the information not be included or the Minister is satisfied that not including it would be in the best interests of the advancement of human rights or the personal safety of the prisoner.

and by replacing “In subsection (4),” in subsection (5) with the following:

In this section,

This is the subamendment that was previously distributed, just with the exception that it adds the words “or the personal safety of the prisoner” to the new proposed 4.1, and it proposes replacing “Minister” with “government” in the place described.

That's the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Genuis, for that.

Could we recess for about five minutes to digest this and get back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Could I also, before you recess, ask them to resend the copy language? We can ask the mover of the amendment to send that to us.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I can try. We're kind of—