Thank you.
I'll briefly discuss against that by putting it again on the floor.
Chair, so that I'm aware, as it's my amendment, can I pull it off the floor or not? Okay. It has to be UC.
Once again, it's to protect inadvertent investments in a company. You can imagine company A perhaps buying a percentage of or making a loan to a company with respect to an investment that has nothing to do with cluster munitions. They may be completely unaware that company B is involved in cluster munitions at all. It would perhaps be heavy-handed to prosecute them when they had no knowledge or awareness that they were inadvertently investing in a project that had nothing to do with cluster munitions, in a company that happens to have some involvement with cluster munitions.
I would reiterate again what Ms. Milligan said. There have been zero prosecutions—I mean none—on financing cluster munitions. By putting a small carve-out in a precise piece of legislation, are we going to change our batting from zero to less than zero? I don't think so.
They say it might be illegal right now, based on the interpretation. We are clarifying that and providing a precise exception, which is in response to Mr. Oliphant's comments in the House of Commons. You can grab the Hansard to read them. I'm perfectly happy to pull this and go back to the original text of it.
We've been here for four meetings on human rights issues. This should not be something that devolves into partisan bickering. I've had my motivations questioned here. Somehow, advocating for human rights is not the right thing to do.
I'm good with either side. I just want to go forward.