Evidence of meeting #6 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was munitions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Right now, in light of cooperation, I would agree with that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, we'll go to a recorded vote, if there's no more discussion.
Just to be clear, we're voting on Green Party amendment PV-4. Thank you.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings])
I am now going to call the question on clause 6 as it is, as there has been no amendment.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
Is there any discussion on clauses 7 to 10 inclusive? Is it all right if I group clauses 7 to 10?
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I'm sorry, just one second, Chair. Thank you to my staff here. I have just one question on paragraph 10(b), if we can go back to that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
If you have a question on clause 10, why don't we vote on clauses 7 to 9 then?
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 10—Exception—deactivated cluster munitions, explosive submunitions, explosive bomblets
Mr. Dewar, your question on clause 10, please.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Unless there are other questions, if people can just turn to clause 10, I just have a question for our experts. At paragraph 10.(b), I reference,
removing or destroying any priming, detonating, dispersal or release mechanism or rendering the mechanism inoperable in such a way that its function cannot readily be restored.
I just wanted to have a definition or clarification of “readily”.
Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It reflects the judgments of the Supreme Court in two cases. One of them is called R. v. Covin and the other one is called R. v. Hasselwander. I can provide the clerk with the citations if you want them after the session. Basically this provision is based on Canadian firearms law and it deals with the bill. We have a lot of case law on deactivated firearms.
The Supreme Court has held that in the Covin case this means that it can't be restored to functionality within the scope of time needed to commit whatever offences are under consideration. For a cluster munition, I think, it would be quite a long time.
The only other point about the drafting of that provision is that in technical terms we needed to cover...and bearing in mind that the bill addresses both cluster munitions and submunitions. Submunitions have explosives in them that can be taken out and priming mechanisms that can be disabled; cluster munitions often don't. So that's the reason for the complex destruction standards. We wanted to make sure that a Canadian court would have absolute clarity, or as much clarity as possible, if someone is charged with possession of something that has in fact been deactivated. That makes it a lot easier to do things like training because you don't have to use the actual munitions. If it's deactivated to the standard, then it stops being a cluster munition both for the purposes of the convention and for purposes of the legislation, and the offences don't apply.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you for the response.
Just in terms of “readily”...some clarification on who this applies to, because we have two different actors in this case—right?— specialists and persons?
Legal Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This is an exclusion again to the prohibitions in clause 6 and the offences in clause 17. So it applies to whoever is found in possession of one of these things. It doesn't deal with Canada's deactivation; it just allows for the technical deactivation of something that is a keepsake, for example. We have issues in this country with war trophies being brought home, and that sort of thing. One of the possibilities here is that one of the more likely prosecutions in this is not somebody opening an illicit cluster munitions factory in Toronto. It's a peacekeeper or NGO worker or somebody bringing one of these things home that may not have been deactivated to a satisfactory standard. So we had to cover off all of those possibilities.
The deactivation standard allows a forensic expert to testify in a criminal court that what the accused was found in possession of was not a cluster munition because it met the deactivation standard. Again, that's the practice, most commonly, with firearms. It applies to a lot of other weapons in Canadian law. So there's a lot of case law about what cannot readily be reactivated or restored. It means that the prosecution could rely on it, if it's prosecuted.
Directorate of International and Operational Law, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence
I have further clarification on who this would apply to. It certainly would apply to members of the Canadian Forces training with inert munitions that therefore wouldn't require a ministerial approval for something that isn't dangerous. So it's training to identify for the purpose of clearance or deactivation.
Because it's an exclusion for any person, it would allow individuals from non-governmental organizations, for example, Mines Action Canada or Handicap International Canada, to maintain examples to show in presentations as well, again on the basis that they don't pose any threat to anybody to maintain those.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'm going to call the question on clause 10.
(Clause 10 agreed to)
(On clause 11—Exceptions—military cooperation or combined military operations)
I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Fortin in one second who is going to talk to his amendment 1 from the Bloc. I just want to let you know, though, that I do have a ruling, but I'm still going to let you introduce your amendment and talk about it briefly.
Bloc
Jean-François Fortin Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First off, I'd like to mention that amendment BQ-2 and amendment BQ-3 are consistent with amendment BQ-1. I'll explain the principle underlying what I am proposing to the committee today.
The Bloc Québecois is glad that Bill C-6 was brought forward and sincerely hopes it will live up to the objectives laid out in the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Keep in mind that the importance of the convention cannot be understated. It prohibits the use of cluster bombs and establishes a framework for their destruction. The prohibitions that have to be included in the bill before us today, a bill to implement the convention, must be firm and comprehensive, while following through on Canada's commitment to never again use cluster bombs, a veritable scourge for civilian populations.
Unfortunately, we think clause 11 of the bill weakens the legislation and, to some extent, spoils its intent by setting out an exception for members of the Canadian Armed Forces participating in joint military operations. The reality is these members of the military could contravene the very spirit of the convention that Canada has signed. As we see it, the exception is so broad that it practically guts the bill of its substance and significance. Simply consider the fact that nearly all the armed conflicts Canada has played a role in recently have involved joint military operations with international troops, either under NATO or with partners who have yet to ratify the convention. Earlier, Ms. May said she hoped that all of our partners, all governments, would end up ratifying the convention. Canada has taken part in missions abroad, both NATO-led and others, and some of Canada's partners have stated their intention not to ratify the convention. In short, those operations, especially with the U.S., could put Canada in contravention of the very spirit of the convention it signed.
In its current form, Bill C-6 is merely window dressing because it has been gutted of any real meaning. And that is why we are proposing three amendments. They would amend the first sentence of each of the subsections in clause 11 and completely transform it, turning the exceptions, which currently allow for the continued use of cluster bombs, into explicit prohibitions, as required by the Convention on Cluster Munitions. With our three amendments, Bill C-6 could actually do what it is supposed to: implement the convention. It wouldn't simply be a public relations exercise to the detriment of civilians who are killed every day by cluster bombs.
Mr. Chair, I will wrap up my remarks with a brief comment so as not to take up too much more of the committee's time. I heard what the experts had to say earlier. I realize their arguments are well thought out, but Canada has a role to fulfill. As it contributes to operations abroad and passes legislation to implement the convention, Canada must show it is mindful of the situation and serve as an example to other nations involved in joint military operations. With a tougher piece of legislation, Canada could set the example for the rest of our international partners.
I urge the committee members to adopt my three amendments, which will give the bill the teeth it needs to do what it is intended to.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much for your intervention, Mr. Fortin.
I'm just going to read why it is inadmissible.
Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions provides for exceptions to prohibitions listed in clause 6 of the bill. One of these exceptions could be found in subclause 11(1), which does not prohibit some specified individuals from doing certain acts listed in clause 6.
The amendment proposes to alter the wording from “does not prohibit” to “prohibits”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition , states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a 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, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill as it negates an exception provided in subclause 11(1) of the bill. Therefore the amendment is inadmissible.
Thank you very much. Now we're going to move to amendment LIB-3. Mr. Garneau, I'll turn the floor over to you for your amendment.
Liberal
Marc Garneau Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I may, I'd like to say a few words about this, because it also introduces the notion of active assistance. The amendment we are proposing here draws on the language of Canada's legislation banning land mines to bring clause 11 of Bill C-6 to what we consider to be in line with article 21 of the convention.
Although our preferred policy would be for Canada to insist that cluster bombs not be used at all in multinational operations Canada participates in, we accept the fact that Canadian Forces may end up working with other countries that 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 from legal prosecution for working with these other countries.
The words “active assistance” we believe accomplish this by making it clear that Canadian Forces cannot knowingly or intentionally assist with the use of cluster munitions but that they are protected from prosecution should they unknowingly or unintentionally assist with the use of cluster munitions.
When Minister Baird came, he made it clear at the committee that he never wants to see Canadian Forces use cluster munitions. Government members of this committee have stated that they see clause 11 not as permission to use cluster munitions but really as intended to be a protection for Canadian soldiers in joint operations.
We believe the wording we are proposing in this amendment is a better reflection of the government's own stated position that it does not want to see Canadians using cluster munitions but that it does want to protect Canadians in combined operations with countries that may use cluster munitions. That is what is behind the proposal we're putting forward as amendment LIB-3.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Just before we have debate on this, I want to mention that the vote on amendment LIB-3 will apply to your amendment LIB-1, which we have allowed to stand, as they are consequential. So if this amendment is adopted, then amendment Green Party-5 and amendment NDP-1 cannot be put. I'll remind you again when we get to the vote, but I just wanted you to know that this is consequential to amendment LIB-1.
I have Mr. Obhrai and then Mr. Allen.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We look at this clause 11 and we recognize the fact that because it involves a lot of exclusions, quite a lot of thinking and quite a lot of debate are going to be required.
May I suggest to the committee that we take away this clause 11 now and have a special session just on it? I suggest we have a special session on clause 11 only, at which we can then get more experts, yours and ours, and we can take the time to address this whole thing so we can get it right.
As I've said, we want to get it right. There are other areas we can go through quickly and then we can call in experts for the special session to talk about clause 11. Believe me clause 11 is quite a heated area about which the opposition has a lot of issues they want to discuss. So I suggest, if the opposition will agree, that we set a special session to discuss clause 11 of this bill and call in experts as we feel necessary.
Would that be acceptable? I put that forward.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Yes, because most amendments are to clause 11, and that is the clause with the exceptions and it is the one we need to have experts come in on to give us more information. Then Mr. Garneau would not be unhappy and say we are throwing everything to the experts.
I'm just putting that forward here. Would that be acceptable to the committee? Then we could move to the other one.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm a little surprised, but pleasantly. It's really important that we get this work done, as my friend said, but that we do it right. Today, actually—I was just looking it up—is the fifth anniversary of the signing of the treaty. It's an historic day.
I think if we can do a set-aside on clause 11...and I'm stating this publicly because on this side we have tried to reach out to try to amend this. We had the minister saying that he was willing to listen and to look at amendments. I'm hoping that this is a genuine opening to really look at this bill in the right frame, that is, we're trying to work together to get this done.
In light of the fact that we've heard from witnesses that clause 11—and I don't blame anyone here—undermines the treaty itself, if the government is willing to actually reach across the aisle, as they say, look at solutions to fix the bill, and fix the bill so that we can all agree on it, I'm happy with that.
But I want to state this publicly: if this is just about the government bringing in people to shore up their point of view or about their talking points on the legislation as it exists with regard to clause 11, then I think that's a grave mistake for the government. I think we really need to look at honouring those victims we've heard about, those people who have been affected, those people who the minister saw and was emotionally moved by, and make sure that we honour the signature that is on that treaty we signed five years ago.
If the parliamentary secretary is putting forward a motion to go through the treaty, set aside clause 11, and come back to it, I'm happy to support that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay.
I had a list here, but I'm assuming that the list doesn't apply anymore.
Mr. Allen, did you have a question?