Evidence of meeting #61 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subamendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
April 27th, 2023 / 11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr Chair, I have trouble understanding why my Conservative colleagues are trying to amend their own bill to achieve, essentially, the same thing.
If I understand Ms. Milligan's testimony correctly, we have, in Canada, a ban on investing in cluster munitions. The Conservatives are trying to legalize investment in these cluster munitions. Amending their clause 6.1 and lowering the limit from 5% to 2% does not change anything. The bill would still have the effect of making cluster munitions legal, which is indefensible to me, personally.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I just want to echo my colleague's comments.
The problematic feature here is that it potentially violates our convention obligations with respect to munitions.
The fact that it's going from 5% to 2%, I believe, is immaterial, because it's really the principle of whether any portion of investments can have munitions. I think in this particular case it allows for that.
I worry about whether this will breach our obligations internationally and about the impact it'll have on our reputation overall.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
11:25 a.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I understand the Liberals' position, but right now we should stick to the 5% to 2% change. They can vote against it.
I think the Conservatives' reason for proposing this amendment was to protect Aunt Huguette, who has invested in a fund and is not necessarily aware of what is going on there. It's not about making it legal to invest funds in cluster munitions; it's about protecting citizens who don't know about all the investments of a fund, like a pension fund. Aunt Huguette doesn't know about this, and neither does Uncle Roger. They don't know where all these funds are invested. I think that's the point of this amendment.
I have some questions about amendment CPC‑4.3, but before we move to CPC‑4.3, can we vote on the amendment that proposes the change from 5% to 2%? We'll have discussions afterwards.
That's what I wanted to say.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
My questions are with respect to CPC-4.3, so I agree with my esteemed colleague from the Bloc.
If we just want to proceed to a vote on the subamendment, then we can get to the amendment there, if that makes sense.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Mr. Genuis, do you have anything to say?
Okay, do we want to vote on the subamendment first?
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
We now go to the amendment.
11:30 a.m.
A voice
As amended.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I'm a bit confused insofar as it seems like there may be a wire crossed a bit on the government side. Currently in law, there is not a prohibition on investments in cluster munitions.
This bill is aimed at combatting cluster munitions by prohibiting those investments. We have, in off-line conversation with members of the committee, gotten the sense that there are some concerns on the government side that this prohibition may inappropriately target those who are inadvertently investing in broader indexes, without their knowledge.
Therefore, this amendment is designed to allay a concern with the original draft of the bill that was raised by members of the government.
If that's no longer a concern, then that's fine, I suppose, but absent our efforts in putting forward this bill in the first place, there would be no prohibition on investments in cluster munitions.
For members to suggest that somehow this is about making things easier for investment in cluster munitions—far from it. That's not the purpose of the bill. Moreover, if members want to defeat this amendment and leave in place the original text of the bill, which is a broader prohibition on cluster munitions, that was our original position. It was only through conversation with members of the government that we said we'd put in this exception for these exceptional circumstances.
This is where the points that are made today are a little bit discordant with things we've heard before, but we can proceed either way, as far as I'm concerned.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Ms. Milligan, would you be able to clarify what the current state of things in Canada is? Are investments in cluster munitions currently illegal?
11:30 a.m.
Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you very much.
From my understanding, based on advice we've received from our lawyers, the original text of the PCMA in the aiding and abetting clause was perceived to encompass investments. Our interpretation of the current law is that it does currently cover.... It's a prohibition against investments.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Is it a prohibition against all investments or against a percentage?
11:30 a.m.
Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
To the best of my knowledge, there's no percentage listed in the act. It's a prohibition on all investments.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Under the Prohibition of Cluster Munitions Act, how many people have been prosecuted successfully for financing the manufacture of cluster munitions?
11:35 a.m.
Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
To the best of my knowledge, we don't know of any prosecutions that have gone forward under the PCMA. I defer, of course, to the RCMP and others who are responsible for that, but we're not aware of any.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
We're happy, candidly, Mr. Chair, to pull this.
This is actually in response to Mr. Oliphant's speech in the House of Commons, in which he said it was overly broad and you could inadvertently get people who had inadvertently invested in a mutual fund—Grandma, if you will. We responded with this.
We're happy to pull this and go with the original text that we put forward in the bill.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a thousand and one questions about the new paragraph 6.1(c) proposed in amendment CPC‑4.3. When I look at it, I don't find it clear. I think our officials had the same concern with the part talking about “certain projects of a company that produces, sells or distributes cluster munitions”.
As I understand it, if a company produces, sells and distributes cluster munitions, but also funds other projects, there would be agreement on funding those other projects. The reason I am wondering about this is, first of all, because “certain projects” is not defined. It's also because these companies are communicating vessels. There are different projects.
If you are funding a project that is not related to cluster munitions, but the company's premises, resources and equipment are communicating vessels, then you are indirectly funding the production, sale and distribution of cluster munitions. The same people are working in the same place. In one way or another, we risk funding these projects, since they are communicating vessels. We don't want that.
I would like my Conservative colleagues to explain to me whether or not my concerns are justified.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
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.