Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2013

[Sabine Nolke]

I think the important point to consider is just to reiterate what Colonel Penny said. With the wider prohibition on transport under Canadian criminal law, it applies to any person on Canadian territory. In other words, it might also apply to nationals of a foreign state for whom the transport of cluster munitions is not a criminal offence. Overflight was mentioned as a possibility, port visits as another. With the Canadian Forces directive, it only applies to Canadian soldiers,, i.e., it criminalizes essentially under the Code of Service Discipline the conduct of persons over whom the Government of Canada has control, and we do not wish to extend our own criminal law, in this sense, to nationals of states or to individuals who might be in the lawful exercise of their duties because their state is not a party to the convention we have named to cross Canadian territory. So that is where the distinction lies, as we do not seek to unduly affect individuals coming from nations that do not consider themselves bound by the convention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. Is there any other discussion?

I'm going to call the question on the Green Party amendment 3.

(Amendment negatived)

We're now going to move on to Green Party amendment 4.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a similar effort to ensure that, in dealing with states that are not party to the convention, Canada takes a very strong view of implementing the convention fully by not providing any direct or indirect financial assistance to a state that is not a party to the convention, where we could have a reasonable expectation that the use of that financial assistance would be towards the production, acquisition, use, maintenance, or transport of the prohibited weapons within the convention, so, cluster munitions, explosives, submunitions or explosive bomblets, except, again, with a legitimate exception, as witnesses have already mentioned, the importance of considering Canada's role in the destruction of such munitions.

So that's an exception within my fourth amendment to the bill, which would appear, again, in clause 6 after the existing paragraphs a) to h) list of prohibitions.

This is to more fully ensure that Canada's ratification to the convention and that our implementing legislation do everything possible to ensure that we close any loopholes for Canada's participation in direct or indirect financial support to the use, transport, or purchase of cluster munitions.

I think it's a very clear amendment. It's a financial amendment, so it doesn't interfere with some of the other exceptions that appear in the bill, and I hope that in that light, it could receive the support of this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Ram.

[Christopher Ram]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll just be very brief because it follows up on something I've already said. Bearing in mind that this is a criminal law bill, it's very helpful to ask as you look at amendments who would be the accused. The effect of an amendment putting a provision into clause 6 as a prohibition then makes it a criminal offence under clause 17. If an individual does this, if I or a member of this committee gives another country or another person, for that matter, financial assistance, then we go back to the question of investment. I could either be actually making a cluster munition or, at minimum, aiding and abetting it, if I know that is what's going on, as an individual.

If you're talking about Canada giving aid to another country for prohibited activities, that's prohibited by the convention itself. I'm not sure if this was enacted whether it would be an offence, and I'm not sure who it would apply to.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Are there any other comments?

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Maybe I could answer that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the latitude

This is to ensure we do have examples in our history, and it doesn't take much to imagine them, where so-called charitable organizations assist in helping other countries develop munitions. I think it's an appropriate criminal prohibition against providing direct or indirect financial assistance to a state that could be developing cluster munitions.

As you say, the Government of Canada, Canada as a party to the convention, would face the prohibition, but this would ensure that...and we can't imagine all the different permutations for individuals, organizations, institutions, mistaken and benighted individuals of all kinds. I remember well friends of mine in Great Britain who wondered when New Yorkers would figure out that donating money to various IRA front groups was actually resulting in people being blown up in Northern Ireland. This would be a good criminal prohibition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

Mr. Ram, and then we'll go to Mr. Garneau.

[Christopher Ram]

I will just note that under both section 2 of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this bill, liability extends to persons or organizations. Some years ago, Parliament amended the Criminal Code to make sure that organizations cover a wide variety of strange creatures out there that ought to be subject to criminal liability. If you can identify it as an organization, then it can be charged and it can be prosecuted for the offence, and if not, you can go after the individuals who are in that organization, anyone, again, who has the requisite knowledge and intention.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, after having heard them say perhaps a million times in the House of Commons that committees are masters of their own destiny, I think enough of a pattern has developed in these proceedings today to draw the conclusion that the Conservatives, whose bill this is, and which they are not even speaking on, are clearly not wanting to speak and are continuously referring to the group of experts here today.

At the very least, could I ask that, when we make votes on the rest of the clauses today, they be recorded votes as a minimum?

And of course, I would encourage members of the Conservative Party, whose bill this is, to stand up and defend it. This is, after all, the foreign affairs parliamentary committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Garneau.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Liberal member is saying, but we have experts. This bill, of course, is indeed a government bill drafted by a policy that was given. The experts have the information and the necessary knowledge to tell us that the amendments that you have put forward.... It's not about defeating your amendments, but that it is already covered, and that can only be done through expert advice. I think it is prudent.

He may not like the fact that we are not talking about it, but we are letting the experts who know their business talk about it, in line with what has already been done here, given the policy. He may not like it, but I would suggest very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that for all the amendments—

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Chair.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Sorry, I'm not used to the committee business now.

Mr. Chairman, we listen to the experts very clearly to understand the concerns and the issues that the opposition has put forward in the amendments. Mr. Speaker, it would be foolish for the amendments...and only the opposition who put in the amendments to only speak on what they want to say and not forget the expert advice that covers that. I think it even makes sense for them to listen to what the experts are saying about their amendment. It's not about anybody being foolish or anything; it's about having the bill correctly done so it is a legal bill.

This is the Government of Canada, a legal bill that is out there. Sure, the committees are masters of their own destiny, but, Mr. Speaker, I have been on committees for a very long time and we have always, always sought expert advice so that we can answer. We don't have that expertise advice, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to say that. We are keeping quiet because we don't have that expert advice. We didn't put that in this thing, Mr. Speaker, and we are seeking their expert advice. And I would strongly suggest for every amendment that is put, we seek the advice from the experts to know what that amendment is all about, whether it is already covered and it meets the requirements of the opposition of the day.

Now, of course, in all honesty, Mr. Garneau had a press conference this morning. He was publicly out there attacking this bill, so now as the experts are telling him, more of his amendments are there. And of course, the NDP had questions in the House. They made a very strong public statement. But it is absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker, we listen to the experts. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I would say we are doing a disservice to the Canadians for whom this bill is out there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, I have Mr. Garneau, and then Ms. Liu.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

First of all, if my honourable colleague had been at the meeting this morning he would not have used the word “attacking”. I was trying to be very constructive and to say that we think we can achieve a bill that still respects the government's intent and yet clarifies it.

Second, certainly in my experience, and I don't have as much in committee as you, once we've heard from these experts—and we have heard from them, some I have seen several times in the course of the last month—there comes a point where we, the members of the parliamentary committee, it would seem to me, should be able to argue our positions. Otherwise, we're always deferring. We are met by stony silence with the simple exception of your saying “I defer to the experts”. That is certainly not my concept of how clause-by-clause discussions of amendments should occur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Ms. Liu.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the sentiment that was expressed by Mr. Garneau. This is absolutely ridiculous behaviour by the Conservatives, and I wish they would express the same kind of respect for other experts such as the government scientists they like to muzzle, but we have heard from enough witnesses in committee. The Conservatives had the chance to ask questions, and Canadians everywhere have a right to know what their response has been to the expert testimony we have already heard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, is there any more discussion?

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chair, in all honesty, in all fairness, the committee will decide. The majority of the members of the committee on this side have decided we are going to listen to the experts before we make our judgment, period. That is the position of this party, and that is the position of this government, and it's going to be like that.

Mr. Chair, I just heard the NDP talking about muzzling of scientists, which clearly indicates they are putting forward a partisan argument.

If they don't like it, so be it, but on this side, Mr. Chair, we will listen to the experts and then we will vote accordingly. That's how we will pursue our decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, is there any more discussion?

Mr. Garneau, are you asking for a recorded vote on this particular vote?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a recorded vote for this and every subsequent amendment today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's every amendment, okay.