Evidence of meeting #3 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I'm just as open to agreeing with you as you are to agreeing with me. I mean that sincerely.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
That's changed because that wasn't the case when we had the bill in front of the Senate. I'm glad to see the change
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you. I think we have 30 seconds left.
My colleague has adequately shown that the government’s position is quite ambiguous. This bill does not have enough teeth. It does not provide for enough constraints. I raised this issue at our last committee meeting saying that stakeholders had pointed out that Bill S-10 does not indicate that the prohibition of assistance applies to direct and indirect investments in the production of cluster weapons and their parts. That worries me, especially since more than 25 countries already agree that the investment would be a form of assistance prohibited by conventions.
At our last meeting, the witness from the Department of Justice said that the act of helping or encouraging someone to commit a crime is automatically handled through the Criminal Code. Why do you refuse to clearly mention in Bill C-6 that the direct or indirect funding for the production of weapons is prohibited when 25 countries in the world have already done so?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'm sorry, that's all the time we have. We're over time. We're going to have to go back to the next round here.
We're going to finish off with Mr. Allen.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Nolke, I'd like to start with you on the comments you made on the civil and the common law, and what different countries have to do in their legislation or, perhaps more important, what they don't have to do in their legislation.
You indicated that, for the ones who have signed on to the convention in article 21, by definition the exceptions in article 21 are in their civil code. Basically, if we don't see them in their law, by definition they don't have to be there, because civil law already includes that. Is that correct? In common law we have to codify it? Do I understand that correctly?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Generally, that would be correct. I'm not speaking for all civil law jurisdictions. But for those that take the monist approach to international treaties, that would be correct. The entire treaty, including article 21, would become part of domestic law in such systems. Germany, for example, has a provision in its constitution that any time Germany ratifies a treaty, that treaty immediately becomes binding law domestically.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
So the effect is the same thing that we accomplish by putting the exclusion provision in clause 11 of this bill?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
That would be correct, yes.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Okay.
General, I'm going to ask you the question, and maybe the minister can answer this too.
If we amended clause 11 or did something to take it out of the bill, we have five people potentially who would be affected. Let's say we have a 2IC who is commanding a force in a development activity, and cluster munitions were used by some forces within that country, what does that mean? What would that mean to one of those five people? Does that mean they could potentially be brought up on criminal charges in Canada if that happened?
5:20 p.m.
BGen Charles Lamarre
Because of the legal aspect of this thing, I will defer to my colleagues.
5:20 p.m.
BGen Charles Lamarre
But, if I can, as a covering statement on that, the concern is always whether, should there be a coalition, our soldiers might be exposed to criminal prosecution as we turn this bill into law.
That's my understanding, but I would defer to my legal colleagues.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Non-Proliferation and Security Threat Reduction Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
The basic answer is yes, there could be a prosecution. The provisions in Bill C-6 on the prohibitions are very wide and they include the entire range of Canadian law on aiding and abetting. For example, if you have a military expert who recommends the use of an airstrike, that could be considered counselling if one of the states in the military coalition is armed with cluster munitions. So that would be a potential exposure. The minister mentioned earlier that, if a soldier called in close air support, that could be considered actual use under Canadian law.
So, yes, there is a potential exposure. This is a criminal law bill. It creates criminal offences. These are potentially very wide-ranging because the bill is very ambitious, just as the treaty is very ambitious in the types of conduct it seeks to outlaw. That is why the exemptions are needed: precisely to provide that necessary balance, so that you do not have Canadian soldiers inadvertently caught by those criminal offences.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Following that up, Minister—and I understand all the sign-on before would be a tremendous challenge—you talked about moving the chains. I think it's important that we move the chains down the field, using the football analogy, at least in some way to make some first downs.
But on the diplomatic front with the non-signatories, what kinds of things are we doing behind the scenes, or even out in public, to make sure that we continue to push this and get the people on side?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I don't think we'd have much credibility pushing it if we hadn't ratified the convention. That's step number one. I appreciate that the Canadian Forces are already beginning to make plans for the destruction of the stockpiles of these weapons that we have. Those are the first two things we can do to demonstrate moral leadership: one, to get rid of the stockpiles we have; and two, to ratify the treaty.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Right.
General, you already have some operational things that you're putting in on top of this bill. Is that right?
5:25 p.m.
BGen Charles Lamarre
Absolutely. On top of that, the Chief of the Defence Staff will issue an instruction once the bill gets ratified and gets passed. At that point, we will take that, in a sense operationalize it, and give the direction to the Canadian Armed Forces. This will describe what the bill contains and put the limits that must be observed according to the law to make sure that we don't contravene it.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
That's all the time we have today, Minister.
To the various departments, thank you very much for being here today.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Can I just make a comment?
We've had a rare example where I think the committee's doing its job, and while we've had differences of opinion they have been focused and were not on a partisan basis, which I greatly appreciate.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative