Foreign Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Welcome to meeting number 61 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, as well as virtually.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking.

Interpretation for those on Zoom is at the bottom of your screen, and you have the choice of either floor, English or French audio. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee resumes consideration of Bill C-281, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

It is now my pleasure to welcome back before the committee officials who will be supporting our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-281.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we're grateful to have back with us Ms. Ashlyn Milligan, deputy director, non-proliferation and disarmament, and Ms. Jennifer Keeling, acting executive director of human rights and indigenous affairs. In addition, from the Department of National Defence, we have Major-General Paul Prévost, director of staff, strategic joint staff.

Before we get into it, I might as well welcome a lot of new members who are here as substitutes today: MPs Kusie, Kelly, Brunelle-Duceppe, Green and Anandasangaree. We also have Mr. Bains, who is joining us virtually.

I will now open the floor in relation to clause 6, which was the next item for consideration when we adjourned debate on Tuesday, April 25. Please refer to version 8 of the package of amendments that was sent this morning to all members.

I have Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

As per the agenda, I would like to move amendment CPC-4.2.

I'd also ask for a little grace from the committee, as well as from the chair, in that CPC-4.2 is a cleanup provision and relates to several other amendments. In order to discuss that, I have to discuss some later amendments, if that is okay with the committee.

Concerns were raised by members of the government and officials that perhaps the scope of the original language of the bill would be too broad and could have some unintended consequences.

The process that we have taken is to use language that is similar to language that was used in the Netherlands parliament to reduce the scope, thus protecting people who may have inadvertently invested in these stocks or mutual funds, as the case may be. Amendment CPC-4.3 contains that provision.

This provision protects individuals who have bought stocks or mutual funds that may have inadvertently or accidentally invested in a company that engaged in cluster munitions. Obviously they are not the target of this legislation, and we want to make sure those people are protected.

I will tell you, just as a bit of background, that right now in Canadian law, those people would actually be held accountable. They are actually technically offside if there is a mutual fund holder. This is actually a relieving provision compared to where we are right now.

Fortunately, the government in its wisdom has not been going after those people, but this actually protects those people in law as opposed to just under an administrative policy.

We propose—and I believe I have agreement from the NDP and the Bloc—to do three things. The first is to vote for amendment CPC-4.2, which is a cleanup provision, just changing the language to reflect what needs to be put in place for CPC-4.3 to be passed, and voting down G-4.

Amendment G-4 is a Liberal amendment. We strongly believe, in consultation with stakeholders and NGOs such as Mines Action Canada, that the bar here is set far too high from a legal perspective.

Amendment G-4 says that an individual will be held accountable if they “knowingly provide”—which, of course means mens rea in legal language, or you believe it would happen—“financial assistance for the purpose of enhancing the ability...to commit [an] act”.

That is a very high bar to hit. I think any prosecutor would have an extremely difficult time achieving a conviction based on saying, “You had to know that this money was going to cluster munitions. In addition, you had to not only know that the money was going to a company that would produce cluster munitions but know specifically that those dollars could be traced back to the construction, manufacture and sale of cluster munitions,” which would be nearly impossible to hit.

We would prefer to go back to the original language. That's why we'll be voting that down.

To sum up, we'll be voting for the cleanup provision, voting against amendment G-4 because it's basically a gutting provision that will render the legislation without purpose, and then voting to respond to the government's concern that it might be overly broad, to protect Grandma who has invested in a mutual fund that inadvertently invested in the manufacture of cluster munitions.

We will also be responding in an act of good faith to the government and reducing the maximum threshold from 5% to 2%. We believe that will limit the scope of this provision and therefore prevent us from, as staff have mentioned, perhaps looking like an outlier in that we are allowing any manufacturer of cluster munitions to be financed by a Canadian company.

I hope those three provisions are somewhat clear. That's where we stand.

We've had a lengthy discussion on this issue, so I would prefer to go to a vote on one after the other, with the proviso that we need to subamend CPC-4.3 to bring the threshold down from 5% to 2%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

We now go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many of the elements affect one another. For example, I would like to understand what would happen to amendment CPC‑4.3 if amendment CPC‑4.2 were defeated. Can my colleague tell me?

As I understand it, we need to pass amendment CPC‑4.2 to discuss amendment CPC‑4.3.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

The legislation would not make sense without CPC-4.2. Because we're putting in a new clause, we then have to refer to that new clause in the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

In other words, CPC-4.2 cannot be adopted on its own. Is that correct?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Would anyone else like to speak to this?

Is there unanimous consent for the adoption of CPC-4.2? No.

We'll have a recorded division, please, Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we will go to G-4. Would someone like to move G-4?

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

Yes, I will move G-4.

There has been considerable discussion on the matter. I think that at this point we ask for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Do we have unanimous consent? No?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 6 carry as amended?

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Now we will go to a new clause, which is clause 6.1.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll make my remarks brief on this.

This, of course, is what I would affectionately refer to as a “grandma” provision, whereby we are preventing a grandmother who has invested in mutual funds from accidentally running up against this legislation. I would also take this opportunity to propose a subamendment as an act of good faith in response to some of the government's and officials' concerns.

Where it says “five per cent”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Lawrence, I'm sorry.

I've just been advised that you cannot introduce a subamendment to your own amendment. Someone else will have to move it.

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

Maybe I'll do it.

I am pleased to move a subamendment, which will subsequently be explained in the particulars by Mr. Lawrence.

I yield the floor.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. You're an exceptional colleague.

With respect to that, anywhere it reads “five per cent”—I believe there are two instances, once under proposed paragraph 6.1(a), and once under proposed paragraph 6.1(b), both in the second-to-last lines in those paragraphs—we would subamend that from “five per cent” to “two per cent”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt clause 6.1? On division?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

You have to vote on the subamendment first.

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

Mr. Chair, I guess whether it's the subamendment or amendment CPC-4.3 overall, I would like to get clarification from our experts on this in terms of what the essential difference would be in reducing it from 5% to 2%.

Would it materially impact the original reason this clause is problematic?

[Ashlyn Milligan, Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, for the specific difference between five per cent and two per cent, unfortunately I'm not a financial expert by any means and I'm not a mutual fund person who understands investments either, so I don't know that I can speak about the intent of moving 5% to 2% or the material difference with enforcing that. The RCMP is responsible for enforcement, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada does the actual investigating and prosecuting.

I will take this opportunity just to make another couple of comments on this amendment and the potential effects it could have.

One thing I would note is that Canada, along with many other countries, has interpreted article 1 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions to be a prohibition on investments. By adopting language within the PCMA that would explicitly allow for investments, the concern would be that we would leave ourselves open to criticism that Canada is no longer compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The other point I want to flag is on proposed paragraph 6.1(c) of the text, where we talk about “investments in certain projects”. “Certain projects” isn't defined, so we think that the potential impact of that language that's not well-defined is it would result in a lack of clarity for individuals and companies as to what would constitute an acceptable project under the law.

I don't know if our colleagues from DND have any concerns about questions on investments and how that might impact their research and development with companies, but I would leave that to them to comment on.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, can we get comment from DND on this as well, please? I understand they are on the line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

We have Major-General Prévost with us today.

Major-General, did you hear the question?

[Major-General Paul Prévost, Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff, Department of National Defence]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did hear the question. We have no concerns at DND. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you for that.

We now go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think we could vote on the subamendment to reduce the percentage from 5% to 2% right away.

I have more questions about amendment CPC‑4.3. That is what I am concerned about. Once we get the percentages out of the way, I would like to have the floor so we can talk about amendment CPC‑4.3. So I would suggest that we vote on the subamendment and discuss the amendment right after.

Thank you.