THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with video conference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (investments).
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, representing Ontario.
Senator Marwah: Sabi Marwah from Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Richards: David Richards from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Welcome, senators. I wish to welcome all of you, as well as those who may be watching across the country today.
We are beginning our study of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (investments). For our first panel, we are honoured to welcome the sponsor of the bill, our colleague the Honourable Senator Salma Ataullahjan. We also welcome, from Mines Action Canada, Paul Hannon, Executive Director; and Erin Hunt, Co-Director, who is joining us by video conference. Thank you for being here with us.
[Translation]
Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. That will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff or others in the room who might be wearing the earpiece.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks. They will be followed by questions from senators.
[English]
Hon. Salma Ataullahjan, sponsor of the bill: Honourable members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear as a witness and as the sponsor of Bill S-225, An Act to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act (investments).
I have witnessed the devastation that cluster munitions cause long after a war has ended, and I do not wish for any more innocent bystanders, who are often children, to be needlessly maimed or killed.
Cluster munitions are designed to open in mid-air and release from tens to thousands of submunitions in order to saturate an area as big as several football fields. When they do not detonate upon landing, they turn into land mines, thereby turning fields into battlegrounds for decades after the conflict is over.
According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, there were at least 689 civilian casualties during cluster munition attacks in the first half of 2022, which represents a 300% increase compared to the number of casualties in 2021.
Sadly, in 2021, nearly all of the recorded victims were civilians, and half were children of an average age of 10.
Children are particularly at risk of falling victim to cluster munitions because they often mistake unexploded ordnance lying on the ground for toys.
Bill S-225 has two clear goals: First, the bill aims to criminalize investments in entities that have breached a prohibition relating to cluster munitions, explosive submunitions and explosive bomblets; second, it also aims to provide guidance to financial institutions by explicitly banning them from making direct or indirect investments in cluster munitions.
Canada was amongst the first countries to adopt the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. As of September 2021, a total of 110 states parties are adhering to the convention’s comprehensive prohibitions. The convention entered into force in 2010 and is the sole international instrument dedicated to ending the suffering caused by cluster munitions.
In 2015, Canada ratified the convention and enacted the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.
Yet, our current legislation does not reflect our international commitment, and it fails to meet the convention standards. Reports by the Dutch peace group PAX have revealed that Canadian financial institutions have invested millions in cluster munitions. Their 2018 report listed Power Financial Corporation as being on the red-flag list for investing $3.3 million in a South Korean corporation specializing in cluster munitions.
I believe this is proof that the naming and shaming of Canadian institutions that continue to invest in cluster munitions manufacturing are not sufficient to uphold our commitment to the convention.
The act, in its current form, as stated by former Senator Hubley in 2017, does not go far enough.
Bill S-225 aims to bring the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act into line with the spirit of the convention. By explicitly prohibiting investments in cluster munitions manufacturing, we would set clear guidelines for Canadian financial institutions that welcomed the idea over a decade ago.
Bill S-225 also closes other existing loopholes by prohibiting Canadian financial institutions from loaning funds to these entities, and even prevents them from acting as a guarantor for their loans.
This act has important gaps and has received international criticism.
When the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade studied Bill C-6, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, in 2014, it heard from almost 30 witnesses who raised many concerns. The act was also publicly denounced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, while the International Campaign to Ban Landmines–Cluster Munition Coalition called it the worst legislation of any state party to the convention. Simply put, the act fails to meet the standards of the convention.
Many countries, such as Italy, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and New Zealand, have already enacted legislation prohibiting investments in companies that produce cluster munitions. One of the most effective ways to end the production of cluster munitions altogether is to cut financial ties to companies that produce them. This can only be achieved through explicit and definitive legislation. This is our chance to become leaders against the production and use of cluster munitions by drying up the financial resources needed to build these weapons. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, senator. Mr. Hannon, the floor is yours.
Paul Hannon, Executive Director, Mines Action Canada: Thank you for the opportunity — on behalf of Mines Action Canada, or MAC — to testify today on Bill S-225.
In April 2013, Mines Action Canada and a small group of non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, decided that an international campaign was needed to address the increasing harm to civilians caused by cluster munitions.
Cluster munitions are weapons that scatter explosive submunitions across a wide area. Dropped from aircraft or fired from the ground, a container munition opens in the air and releases small submunitions to explode across the area below. The number of submunitions packed into a container ranges from fewer than 10 to many hundreds.
At the time of use, cluster munitions randomly scatter many submunitions and, therefore, tend to strike the target and all of the surrounding area, including civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Not all submunitions explode on impact, leaving a large number of explosives in post-conflict environments. Often compared to anti-personnel mines, these unexploded submunitions impede access to community resources and cause injury to civilians long after conflict has ceased.
The successful negotiations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions concluded on May 30, 2008, and the treaty was signed on December 3 of that year by Canada and dozens of other countries.
After 2008, Mines Action Canada continued to campaign domestically for Canada to ratify the treaty with the best possible implementation legislation until ratification was completed in 2015.
One campaign event in particular is pertinent to the legislation under consideration now. In 2010, MAC organized an event in Toronto with 25 of the largest financial institutions in Canada. With the assistance of some of our international colleagues, we provided an overview of the weapon, the reason it was banned and the need for Canada to ratify the treaty. We also explained to them the importance of disinvesting from companies that produced these banned weapons.
The participants clearly understood the moral issue; the reputational risk to their institution to be seen supporting the production of banned weapons; and — this one, in particular — the studies that have shown that 90% of the casualties of these weapons were civilians.
However, they all told us that it would be easier to convince their shareholders and their boards if Canadian legislation made it clear that such investments were prohibited. This bill makes the prohibition clear.
Domestic implementation legislation is very important for international treaties — it not only proves the state’s desire to implement and be bound by the treaty, but also augments and expands the international norm that such treaties intend to create. Sometimes they need improvement. Bill S-225 provides improvement in a key area. My co-director, Erin Hunt, will provide information for your consideration.
Erin Hunt, Co-Director, Mines Action Canada: Thank you, Mr. Hannon, and thank you to the committee for the invitation to speak today.
As Mr. Hannon has established, cluster munitions are horrific weapons that Canada has rightfully prohibited. During the process to pass the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, Mines Action Canada was adamant that the implied prohibition on investment within the legislation needed to become explicit in order to achieve the government’s goal.
Since 2007, 11 states parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions have enacted legislation that explicitly prohibits investment in cluster munitions producers, including — as you heard from the senator — most recently, Italy. The key to successful disinvestment legislation is clarity.
We cannot expect that, back in 2014, financial institutions were monitoring the statements by government officials in the Foreign Affairs Committee — here and in the other place — on a piece of legislation concerning a weapons treaty. The financial sector requires explicit and clear instructions in order to develop the internal restrictions and regulations necessary to fully implement the government’s intention with regard to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Bill S-225 is clear: It explicitly outlines what is prohibited and what is permitted. That clarity will allow financial institutions to adapt, and ensure that the letter and spirit of the law is followed.
The transitional provision in the bill further eliminates concerns about a burden on individuals and institutions by providing a year to make any necessary changes to investment or fund portfolios.
We know that disinvestment works. Since the Convention on Cluster Munitions entered into force, Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel; Singapore Technologies Engineering; and U.S. companies Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK and Techtron Systems have all stopped producing cluster munitions due, in part, to pressure from the financial sector. These companies are not based in states parties to the convention, but the existence of legislation — such as the one we are discussing today — put enough pressure on them to decide that it no longer made financial sense to produce these weapons.
At a time when we’re seeing cluster munitions being used on Ukrainian cities, Bill S-225 is another way that Canada can say that these banned weapons are unacceptable.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration, and we look forward to the discussion.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Hunt and Mr. Hannon, for your comments.
Colleagues, we’ll now proceed to the question-and-answer period. As per usual, I want to advise you that you have a maximum of four minutes during the first round — that will include your questions as well as the answers. In the interest of getting the most out of our witnesses, please keep the questions concise; I would encourage the witnesses to do the same.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
My question is for my colleague Senator Ataullahjan. What motivated you to introduce this bill, and what do you hope to achieve through it? Furthermore, could you speak to any challenges that you faced in developing this bill, and how did you work to address these challenges? Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Senator Ravalia, for your question. When Russia was leaving Afghanistan in the 1980s, they heavily mined that area. My uncle, who was an orthopaedic surgeon, would see patients who would be brought — sometimes in a car, or sometimes on a horse — to the hospitals in Peshawar because Afghanistan, at that time, did not have the needed facilities. I would hear first-hand from him about the devastation caused by cluster munitions.
It breaks my heart now to see Ukraine because I know the same thing is happening there — we have seen news reports. Just two or three days ago, I saw a report on one of the TV stations that Canadians are helping Ukrainians clear the mines.
Cluster munitions kill civilians, mostly children. In 2019, I had asked for a report from the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Over 900 children were killed that year, and 25% were because of cluster munitions.
Russia left Afghanistan 34 years ago, and they are still struggling with the deaths from cluster munitions. Most of you know me: I’m a human rights person. I don’t have a legal mind. I think with my heart. When I found out there were companies that were investing — I’ve worked on this bill since 2017, Senator Ravalia. We had some issues because some of the senators wondered, “If we pass this bill, does this mean we will not be able to hold military manœuvres with some of our allies?” No; this is just about financial institutions investing in cluster munitions, and we want to put a stop to that. Thank you for your question.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our three witnesses. Senator Ataullahjan, thank you for your leadership on this in the chamber. We’re working closely together. I’m the critic, as you know — the friendly critic.
Mr. Hannon and Ms. Hunt, thank you for your testimony, as well as the work that Mines Action Canada does. Thank you very much for that important work.
I have a question for each of you, so I’ll try to be quick. The first question is for Mines Action Canada — for whichever of the witnesses wants to answer it.
According to the Cluster Munition Coalition, 11 states parties to the convention have enacted legislation, like the one we’re looking at here, that prohibits investments in cluster munitions.
I’m curious if you know how the language in this bill compares with the prohibitions against cluster munitions investment within the legislation of other countries. Are we aligning with best practices?
Senator Ataullahjan, in your answer to Senator Ravalia, you have clearly identified that this is strictly about investments. Two problems were mentioned previously about our legislation here in Canada. One was about interoperability — this is not about that, as that will be for another conversation.
Maybe this isn’t fair to ask of you, but in terms of the receptivity within the Canadian government to this particular bill — we want this bill to pass — are there other obstacles that we need to know about that you have, perhaps, encountered, or not?
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Senator Coyle, for your question. I don’t know how receptive the government is. I first introduced this bill in 2017. With elections, everything falls off the table. Many of you know that I’m persistent, and I reintroduced it. I don’t know what the government’s reaction will be. We will find out once this goes to the other side. Looking at the current situation worldwide, it really makes sense that we stand up and stop our financial institutions from investing. That’s all this bill does.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Mr. Hannon: I’ll try to keep it brief in case Ms. Hunt wants to add something.
This bill will greatly improve our legislation, and make it more compatible with some of the best legislation in the world. Obviously, financial rules and regulations differ among countries, as does legislation, so it’s hard to make a comparison.
The main effort is for us to try to make it clear to companies — that may be willing to invest in the manufacture of inhumane and indiscriminate weapons — that there is no market for this, and there is no money available for them if they think there is a market. That’s the main goal. This makes it much clearer that, in Canada, Canadian financial institutions should not be involved in this industry. There are lots of other places where they can invest or loan their money.
Ms. Hunt: This bill meets most of what we consider good legislation. It ticks almost all of the boxes globally. It covers direct and indirect investment. It’s clear. It lays out some penalties and that sort of thing. Compared to others, we’re looking good with this bill.
Senator Coyle: You said it doesn’t tick all of the boxes. What are the ones it doesn’t tick?
The Chair: Those boxes may have to wait until the second round, Senator Coyle; I’m sorry.
Senator MacDonald: There are some difficult questions around this, though. We’re considering a bill to further strengthen Canada’s adherence to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In the meantime, last month, Ukraine has requested cluster munitions from the United States for its fight against Russia’s invasion. The U.S. has not signed the convention. Ukraine argues that they need these weapons to counter the Russian tanks.
This is a question of morality. Does Ukraine have the moral right to defend itself using these weapons? Alternatively, are we potentially immoral for working to deny Ukraine the ability to defend itself using these weapons? Where are we supposed to land on this as Canadians?
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for the question. I’m personally against the use of cluster munitions. Ukraine may request them now to use against Russian tanks, but these things are scattered all over the countryside, and it’s very hard to remove them. Like I said, 34 years later, Afghanistan is still struggling.
It’s a difficult question to answer, senator, because, on the one hand, we know that Russia and Ukraine are some of the countries that have used them. But what are the after-effects going to be once this war is over? That’s what we need to think of. I don’t know if Mr. Hannon wants to add to that.
Mr. Hannon: Yes, certainly Ukraine has the moral right to defend itself. The question is whether it defends itself with weapons that the majority of the world has found inhumane and indiscriminate. Does it have the right to use a weapon that doesn’t necessarily work as it’s supposed to, but will leave behind de facto minefields for decades? Its own people, and the rest of us, will have to support them in clearing those fields. There are now 111 countries that have joined this treaty — Nigeria just joined this month. I don’t think 111 countries would join a treaty if they felt this was the most effective weapon available to them.
Senator MacDonald: We have a very close defence relationship with the United States. Our defence industries are closely integrated, and the U.S. has not signed the convention. Can we be assured that this bill will have no impact on the bilateral defence relationship that we have with the U.S.?
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, senator. I already addressed that — this is just dealing with investment companies and investing. I might be correct to say that, I think, the U.S. is no longer producing cluster munitions.
Senator MacDonald: No, they are not. But if they were to resume the production of cluster munitions, Canadian defence firms continue to subcontract. There is a subcontractual relationship with U.S. firms that engage in such production.
Senator Ataullahjan: This would only impact financial institutions that are investing. We do not want any Canadian money going into companies that are producing cluster munitions.
Ms. Hunt: The senator is right. We are looking at investment in corporations, and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act would already cover a lot of the concerns about interoperability, as well as the connections between the military-industrial sectors in Canada and the United States.
I want to add one point about Ukraine: It looks like Ukraine is requesting the cluster munitions not because they want to use them as cluster munitions, but because they are looking for small bombs to add to commercial drones. So, even in that request, it looks like Ukraine realizes that cluster munitions themselves are not useful — it’s the component parts they were looking for.
Thank you for your question, senator.
Senator MacDonald: I have more questions for the next round.
The Chair: Thank you. I just want to note that Senator Housakos of Quebec has joined the meeting.
Senator Dean: Thank you to our witnesses for a terrific presentation, and for the virtuous nature of the initiative that you are proposing.
We have heard that some manufacturers have been convinced to leave the territory here as a result of initiatives in this, as well as in other countries. I think I just heard that manufacturers have ceased to do this in the U.S. Who are the other manufacturers that are still in the business, and where are they? Do you have some sense of the separation between state manufacturers and private sector manufacturers? I’m particularly thinking about private sector manufacturers. Who is still making these things?
Mr. Hannon: I do have a list for you. There are about 16 countries that still reserve the right to produce the weapons, but that doesn’t mean they all do. Some countries include South Korea, the U.S. and Israel. As Ms. Hunt said in our testimony, some companies have already decided not to produce because of the nature of the weapon. Much of the weaponry that seems to be available now is state made. Russia is still producing; Iran is producing — but there is not a lot of trade anymore because we are drying up the market due to the impact of the weapon. The humanitarian concerns of the weapon include ensuring that private firms realize they shouldn’t be involved in this.
Senator Richards: Senator Ataullahjan, I think this is a very admirable quest — and my question is not unlike Senator MacDonald’s. Who in the world would be able to put pressure on countries — such as Russia, China, the U.S. and other major actors — to take any prohibition seriously enough to halt production? If this is not going to happen — I mean, these are the major players in the military world, and if we have no say in what’s going to be enacted in their legislation, they are still going to be the major players in the military world. They are going to do what they want, or what they feel is necessary for their own protection. We see this now in Ukraine, and we have seen it before in Iran. We have seen it across the board.
This question is for anyone who wants to answer it.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for that. Once again, I want to stress that we’re talking about Canadian companies investing money. I think Mr. Hannon might agree with me regarding this: We have seen that when the money dried up, certain companies stopped producing. This bill is a very simple bill. We do not want Canadian financial institutions investing.
Senator Richards: I was looking at the bigger picture; I’m sorry.
Do you know how many companies in Canada are financing these munitions? Do we have a list or an overview of how many there might be, Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: I think the last known list was from 2018. It was Power Financial Corporation, which was named to the hall of shame. But there is a certain threshold, and there are some other companies that are below the threshold, so they don’t get named.
Ms. Hunt: As the senator said, in 2018, Power Financial Corporation had about US$3.6 million invested in two South Korean companies. AGF Management Limited had less than a million dollars invested in a South Korean company. BMO Financial Group had US$0.13 million in Hanwha, a South Korean company. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had $0.56 million in another South Korean company called LIG Nex1. Scotiabank had $1.6 million, TD Bank had $0.6 million and Sun Life Financial had less than $1 million — and these were all invested in South Korean companies.
An update to this list will be released this year, and it looks like it’s down to only one South Korean company that Canadian financial institutions have any financial relationship with. Those numbers are not official yet, so I don’t want to put them into the record for you. Hanwha, the main South Korean company that Canadian financial institutions are connected to, is reassessing their cluster munitions production because of financial pressures.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Just to follow up, is the South Korean company actually producing cluster munitions now? Do you know that?
Ms. Hunt: What has happened now is there was a shareholder proposal to end the production and shift it to a Korean defence industry corporation, which is a new company. Hanwha appears to be ceasing production, but they seem to be moving it to a company affiliated with them. I do not have the business background to fully understand what it means when you move things between companies that are affiliated.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: I have started off with understanding what this is that we’re talking about. I did a deep dive on cluster munitions with a science background, and became quite interested in the chemistry that, frankly, goes into these products. It’s no surprise that the potential acreage of damage is there. It’s quite an interesting little piece of research.
Also, thank you for being here today. The bill is around the investment piece. It does come back to the question regarding individual investments in weapons companies — and we have heard of some companies today.
It was mentioned that U.S. weapons manufacturers have walked away from cluster munitions, but I believe this is voluntary, and it could change. At the individual level, if a Canadian buys equity — and we’ve heard some listed — on bonds in an American weapons manufacturer that goes on to produce cluster munitions, could they be charged under the terms of this legislation? I’m trying to understand what the endgame is.
It’s a problem — people are investing.
Senator Ataullahjan: Again, to stress this point, I think what you are talking about is out of the scope of this bill — we are talking about Canadian companies not investing.
Senator M. Deacon: That’s right.
Senator Ataullahjan: Canadian financial institutions cannot invest in any company that is producing cluster munitions.
Senator M. Deacon: With this legislation, if they do, then is that out of your scope regarding what the next steps might be?
Senator Ataullahjan: Do you mean for the Canadian companies?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes.
Senator Ataullahjan: Again, if this legislation is passed, then we will see — it will have to come into the Criminal Code, and if you break the Criminal Code, then it’s up. I’m not a lawyer; I don’t have a legal mind — that’s why the committee is studying it, and once it reaches the other side, and once it’s passed, then we’ll have to see what the penalties will be for that.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Perhaps this is a question that I would ask directly to Mines Action Canada. It’s my understanding that Canada doesn’t have a similar prohibition on investment in land mine manufacturing, which is not part of this legislation, but it’s another piece and factors into our commitments under the Ottawa Treaty. Would you like to see similar legislation applied to this area as well?
Mr. Hannon: I’ll tackle that, if that’s okay, Ms. Hunt.
The effort that Canada led to ban land mines was so successful, and had such broad international support that 80% of the world’s countries are party to the treaty. At that time, it didn’t seem necessary to produce it. There is not much money made from producing land mines. They are very cheap. Going in and trying to get investment in a prohibition just didn’t seem necessary. Everybody was supporting the treaty. Even countries like the U.S. and China — who haven’t joined — don’t use them. It has that effect. It’s the norm, and that’s what we want to create.
This bill is different. This weapon is different. It is more high-tech and more expensive. There is the possibility that it’s going to take longer because the weapon itself is not used very much, and very few militaries actually have them. It’s harder — public pressure isn’t there at the same level. We feel that it’s necessary for us to have legislation. We have been promoting this internationally — that all countries have domestic legislation — and part of that domestic legislation should include prohibition in the production of the weapon.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I should say, at the outset, that I fully support your desire to make cluster munitions difficult, if not impossible, to manufacture, and that they are horrific weapons of war.
The question I have is in regard to the practicality of implementing a bill such as this. I have a quote here that says the amendment would prohibit individuals and organizations from investing in financial institutions that invest directly in cluster munitions.
I will give you an example. If all of us in this room decide to invest in a Canadian bank, or an American bank or a European bank, how would we even know that they have invested in cluster munitions? Am I offside if they, in turn, have found out that I invested in Bank of America, and then they find out some years later that they invested in cluster munitions? Am I offside of the law?
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator, that’s a difficult question to answer, but I think there are companies that will trace who is investing what and where.
Imagine my shock, in 2017, when I first heard that the bank that I was dealing with was investing in cluster munitions — it was investing in financial institutions that were manufacturing cluster munitions. Since then, they are not investing in that.
I think Mr. Hannon might be in a better position — because this is what he does — to answer this question.
Mr. Hannon: Certainly; I’ll try.
The event that I mentioned to you — when we had all of the financial institutions together in 2010 — was co-sponsored by a company called Sustainalytics. It’s a research firm for financial institutions, advising them on controversial issues. They do keep a register of controversial weapons, as do a number of other firms that do similar work. They advise firms — it could be banks or other financial institutions — that may want to invest in a company like this, and they say, “This is what they do; you make that decision.”
When we had that meeting, the financial institution representatives were very clear that they understood the problems. They just said, “Our boards will listen to legislation. They won’t listen to testimony or our advocacy. If you make it clear that we should not be investing in the production of these weapons, then they will make decisions appropriate to that.”
What we want to do is create a top-down effect, where you get the boards to say, “We are not going to invest in this anymore. We’re not going to support this. We’re not going to give loans.” That will trickle down through the organization, and we won’t necessarily need to worry about the individual investor who inadvertently might be involved in purchasing something like that.
Senator Marwah: How about the American financial institutions? If I invest in Bank of America or Wells Fargo or Citi — or I can name 100 banks that I have invested in — and they, in turn, have invested in a local munitions manufacturer, how would I even know?
Mr. Hannon: To Senator Ataullahjan’s point, this is for Canadian financial institutions.
Senator Marwah: I didn’t say that.
Mr. Hannon: You’re doing legislation for Canadian financial institutions. If someone wants to invest their money outside of Canada, that’s up to them, and they take the risks or the benefits that come with that. What we’re trying to do is provide this clarity: Canada has decided this weapon needs to be banned, and we need to ban all elements of the weapon — no stockpiles, no trade, no production, no investment and no use.
Senator Marwah: I have a follow-up question, but I’ll wait for the second round.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Housakos: Senator Marwah’s question is right on the bull’s eye. The truth of the matter is that if many of us actually scratched under the surface of our financial institutions that we invest in, we’d be surprised in the kind of areas, and the kind of places, where they are investing our money — but I digress.
I have a simple question: This legislation will apply to prohibiting investment to Canadian firms that build munitions — not international ones. Is that correct?
Senator Ataullahjan: That is correct, Senator Housakos. This legislation is just for Canadian financial institutions.
Senator Housakos: Who invest in Canadian companies —
Senator Ataullahjan: No.
Senator Housakos: — or internationally as well?
Senator Ataullahjan: Or international companies that manufacture cluster munitions.
Senator Housakos: Again, to Senator Marwah’s point — I’m all in favour of the objective — very often, Canadian financial institutions will invest in other financial institutions overseas, or other organizations, who then, in turn, invest in third parties. How would we be able to implement this legislation? How would the government functionally implement it? And what ministry would it fall under?
Senator Ataullahjan: Global Affairs would be dealing with this. And I think there is the term “knowing.”
Mr. Hannon: I’m assuming that — I used to be a banker, but it was a long time ago — when financial institutions are investing millions of dollars, they actually know what they are investing in, and they will tell people, “It’s illegal for us to invest in this. Are you producing this? Are you involved in this?” If somebody lies to them and says, “No, we’re not involved,” then they don’t know. They are not going to be held culpable for that. If they are told yes, then they can make that decision and say, “It’s illegal for us to invest in this. Do we want to invest in this?”
We have to give the businesses, the financial community and the companies some credit that they know what they are doing. We just need to make it clear for them that this is something that Canada should not be involved in.
Senator Ataullahjan: Especially if there is legislation that is passed, then the banks would think twice before they invest in something that is prohibited.
Senator Housakos: Legislation is one thing — even the Criminal Code will ban certain products coming in from certain parts of the world that are involved in nefarious activity — but you also need to have the bureaucratic framework to be able to exercise it. We see very often that the Canada Border Services Agency complains that they don’t have the resources to implement elements of the Criminal Code. That’s my concern.
I think this is a noble attempt, but do we have the functional resources to implement it? That’s my concern.
Senator Ataullahjan: I agree with you, Senator Housakos. We can have all of the legislation we want, but, unless we implement it, it’s a useless piece of paper.
Ms. Hunt: If I may add, we have banned investments and sanctioned companies before. Financial institutions have the set-up to be able to do this; they just need the clarity that is required.
Also, I believe Global Affairs will be testifying afterwards, so perhaps they will be able to share a little bit more on the bureaucratic framework they’re planning.
The Chair: Thank you. That’s a good precursor, as we say, to the next panel with the government. We are in round two, and, yes, Senator Coyle, it’s your turn.
Senator Coyle: This is an important discussion. We don’t want the wording of this bill to get in the way of the intent.
My first question is for Ms. Hunt. Could you tell us which boxes this doesn’t tick? You said it ticks almost all of the boxes — which ones doesn’t it tick?
My second question is for anybody. There is some ambiguity in some of the language that we’re seeing here. The bill, as presented by Senator Ataullahjan — then, I spoke to it, of course — talks about investments in individuals or organizations, not investments by individuals or organizations. But then there is other language that talks about prohibiting individuals and organizations from investing.
The intent, as I understand it, is to prohibit Canadian financial entities from investing in those entities that produce cluster munitions. We know that they are not produced in Canada; wherever they are produced in the world, we don’t want Canadian financial entities to be investing in them. That’s the intent. It’s not downstream or upstream — however we look at it — of the individual person who may have stock in TD Bank or whatever. I just want to ensure that we have reconciled that in the language of the bill.
Senator Ataullahjan: I think it’s very clear that it’s financial institutions. I have to look at the way it’s worded.
In the Senate and in the committees, if anyone feels that they can improve on this, and improve on the language, I am open to amendments. This is something that I have been working on since 2017. For me, it’s the financial entities not investing Canadians’ money, or money generally, into cluster munitions.
Senator Coyle: Meeting that intent is what we need to ensure the language does. And how about the boxes, Ms. Hunt?
Ms. Hunt: Yes, the boxes — we usually like to see legislation provide some supervision or monitoring tools, which, I think, speaks to one of the questions that we just had. Hopefully, we can get some clarity on that from government officials.
A best-case scenario, which not many countries have been able to meet, is providing a public list of the companies that fall under the ban — the producers that are illegal to invest in.
I have a note here that, for example, the Netherlands has an oversight body for their financial sector that monitors compliance, and it does have a list, but they don’t publish that list. Even in a sort of best-case scenario, they are not making the list public, so I don’t think anyone ticks that box yet.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Let’s go back to this again: I have great sympathy for the intent of this bill. This question is for Mines Action Canada. My nephew is the head of orthopaedic surgery in the west end of Ottawa. He spent three terms in the military in Bosnia during the 1990s. He said, “Uncle Mike, I learned how to do my surgery on the battlefield over there.” The number of young people coming in with their legs and feet blown off — it’s just unbelievable what he went through. I have great sympathy for this.
On the other hand, we were instrumental in the ban on anti-personnel land mines, yet, when real threats show up, these conventions don’t seem to mean anything. Ukraine, for example, who I’m very sympathetic toward — everybody knows that — signed the convention against land mines, but, according to Human Rights Watch, they are using anti-personnel land mines notwithstanding their signature. Of course, this shouldn’t be a big surprise, given they’re fighting for their life, their survival and their existence.
Are we not concerned that we’re virtue signalling, but with only limited impact on the real world? Are we really affecting meaningful change?
Mr. Hannon: I’m happy to tackle that; it’s a good question. I think the fact that now, when we have conflicts, you get news reports and all kinds of other monitoring with the use of land mines, cluster munitions and other weapons, each side blames the other for using what everybody knows is a banned weapon. To me, that is actually an indication of the progress we’re making because, 20 to 25 years ago, these weapons would have been used in every conflict. If the military had them, they would use them. Now they are being used in limited circumstances so that we are actually able to track them and we know about them. We are having an impact that way.
In the case of Ukraine, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines–Cluster Munition Coalition have been talking to the Ukrainian government and officials, as well as to our own parliamentarians and saying, “You need to talk to them; they shouldn’t be using these weapons.” We understand that they are under attack. We understand it’s an illegal invasion, and they have the right to defend themselves. However, they have other tools they can use that will not only help them in combat, but will also protect their own citizens from the use of weapons that will kill and injure their own civilians.
I think it’s not just virtue signalling. It really does have an impact. It’s harder to measure, but you can see that there are so few conflicts now where land mines are used — at one point, it was a very common weapon; everybody had them in their military.
We are having an impact. Unfortunately, it moves at a glacial pace. I would like it to move much faster.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator MacDonald, my main concern is that — judging from Russia’s history in Afghanistan, and how indiscriminately they used these cluster munitions — I worry for Ukraine. We all know; we have spoken about it, and we stand in support. In fact, about two weeks ago with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or IPU, in Bahrain, Ukraine had a side event on cluster munitions where I spoke on this legislation, and spoke about Canada’s support for Ukraine. The MP who was leading the conversation actually gave me a hug and thanked me for the way Canada stood by them — and also discussed the concern they have that once the war is over, Russia would have heavily mined that area, and it will be the civilians, primarily the children, who will suffer the most.
Senator Marwah: My follow-up question is also in the realm of how easy or practical it is to implement this. I’m following the premise that often there is no such thing as failed legislation — just failed execution. I want to tighten this such that it doesn’t fail in its execution.
I have an example for you: I’m a cluster munition. As you know, in today’s supply world, nobody manufactures anything from soup to nuts — nobody does. So our cluster munitions manufacturer has outsourced their production to 50 companies. Without that, all they do is assemble. How would you handle that? If I keep track of those 50 companies, how would I know which ones to lend to, and which ones not to lend to? Which part is being produced by what? How would you execute something like that? Should we say there is only the primary manufacturer rather than all of the secondary manufacturers that add parts to a primary manufacturer? How would you handle that?
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your question, Senator Marwah. As I said, I saw something that was being done, and I was shocked. I said, “We need to put a stop to this.” This may be a question for the officials. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the legalities of how this would be done. I’m sure there is a way that it can be done. It also depends on the legislation. Maybe this is a question for Global Affairs — have they dealt with something like this? Perhaps Mr. Hannon has something to add to that.
Mr. Hannon: Coming at this from a humanitarian perspective, if we don’t start somewhere, we will never stop this.
Senator Marwah: I agree with you. I’m just trying to make it tight so that they don’t get away by outsourcing everything, and you’re back to square one. How do we prevent that from happening?
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Marwah, we start somewhere. Where we sit in the Senate, we know that legislation can always be improved upon. We have to start somewhere. I’m hoping that this is a start where the financial institutions say, “There is this piece of legislation, and we are not supposed to be investing money in companies that manufacture cluster munitions.” This is a start. There is always a way to amend legislation. For us, this is a learning process too.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Hannon and Ms. Hunt. I recall very well the movement that led to the approval of the Ottawa Convention that banned anti-personnel land mines. A few of us were involved in that at the time. Of course, a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the civil society conglomerate that was working on that.
I think all of us admire the work that you’re doing. Do you have a lot of contact with groups in other countries who are advocating for the same thing in some of our allied partners?
For Senator Ataullahjan, I really appreciate all of the work that you do in the IPU. We talk about it from time to time. However, some of the IPU members are from authoritarian regimes, including the ones that are using this particular weapon.
In regard to the state of the movement globally, when legislators meet internationally can they push this effectively?
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are very familiar with the IPU. These issues are raised, and there is discussion. As you said, parliamentarians from certain countries do not live by the rules or the expected norms, but there is pushback. That’s why Canada is there.
To give you a recent example — and this is going off the topic of what we’ve achieved — Canada is part of the Asia-Pacific group. We had a young Iranian parliamentarian who wanted to represent that group on the group of young parliamentarians. I asked him, “Why would we trust you to represent a group that has men and women when you can’t stand up for the rights of Iranian women?” He didn’t win that election — many countries came. It was almost like I saw a light in the women’s eyes. They realized what we were talking about.
We are there to hold up a mirror to a lot of these countries in the discussions. Sometimes it doesn’t go our way. But as long as we continue asking the questions and raising our voices, I think that is what is important.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hannon: I think I will let my colleague in Victoria answer this because she is the future and I’m the past.
Ms. Hunt: Thanks, Mr. Hannon, and thank you, senator. We work closely with the global Cluster Munition Coalition, as well as a wide number of other civil society actors. I actually have a poster right here that is an image from the Cluster Munition Coalition.
In terms of this legislation, I have directly spoken to colleagues in the Netherlands and the U.S. in order to analyze the bills, talk to different lawyers and talk to different experts. When it comes to the movement more broadly, one of the things that Mines Action Canada does right now, with the support of Canada, is train young people that are working in the field — assisting victims, clearing cluster munitions, clearing mines and advocating for their countries to join — on how to be heard at things such as the parliamentary level or the international level.
We are seeing this large number of really passionate, mostly young women from Brazil calling on their government to join the ban, as well as Azerbaijan dealing with the aftermath of the cluster munition use there in 2020, and Afghanistan when they could speak out. The campaign is strong, and they are interested in this bill.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have five minutes left. Senator Dean and Senator Housakos, could you ask your questions in sequence? If you could make them short, we can get an answer from our witnesses.
Senator Dean: I will return briefly to Senator Marwah’s question about primary contractors and subcontractors. I share his concern about that.
In practical terms, I’m assuming that if you shut down the primary contractor, or producer, of the finished product, you will get rid of the subcontractors. Some of those subcontractors may well be producing benign, generic projects that have purposes other than the production of cluster munitions.
Am I right in the assumption that the target of this legislation is the primary producer of the finished product?
Senator Housakos: You can have the best intentioned legislation in the world, of course — this is a follow-up to my last question. Along with legislation of this nature, you need good regulations, and you need a good regulatory framework with the political will to execute it.
From the signatories already on this treaty, do you have examples of nations who have had a better regulatory process and have been more effective? Do you have cases of these signatories who did not have in place a good, functional regulatory process?
Mr. Hannon: To answer Senator Dean’s question, I think our goal is to make it clear to everybody that nobody should be producing or using these weapons. If the primary contractor doesn’t ask for it, I’m not sure the subcontractor will jump up and say, “We will do it,” because they may not have the capacity to do that. I guess that’s a conditional yes. For us, it’s basically that everybody shouldn’t do this.
Ms. Hunt, do you want to tackle the question from Senator Housakos?
Ms. Hunt: I was going to ask if I can email you a very detailed answer, senator, as opposed to trying to fit it in 30 seconds, or whatever time we have left.
Senator Housakos: That would be good.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hunt. Please send it to the clerk of the committee, Chantal Cardinal. We’ll ensure that it’s distributed and regarded.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank our three witnesses, our colleague Senator Ataullahjan; Mr. Hannon; and Ms. Hunt, for their testimony today. It was a very interesting session. Thank you.
For our second panel, we are pleased to welcome, from Global Affairs Canada, Angelica Liao-Moroz, Acting Director General, International Security Policy; and Ashlyn Milligan, Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Division. We are ready for your opening statement, Ms. Liao-Moroz — please, you have the floor.
Angelica Liao-Moroz, Acting Director General, International Security Policy, Global Affairs Canada: Good afternoon, senators, and thank you for inviting Global Affairs Canada to address this Senate committee. Thank you to Senator Ataullahjan for having introduced Senate public Bill S-225 to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, or PCMA.
From our perspective, this bill seeks to strengthen prohibitions related to investments in cluster munition weapons. This is an important objective, and we do welcome the discussion on this.
As you have heard from previous witnesses, cluster munitions have indiscriminate effects, killing and maiming civilians primarily, and crippling the infrastructure. Such weapons can have very high failure rates and, as a result, leave behind large numbers of dangerous unexploded submunitions — which pose grave and long-term danger to civilians, as well as seriously impede sustainable development and post-conflict recovery for affected societies. We have heard that children are particularly at risk; we heard that earlier in the testimony. Often, cluster submunitions appear as toys or trinkets that children will want to play with.
According to the latest report of the Cluster Munition Monitor, there were 149 global casualties linked to these weapons in 2021 — 97% of which were civilians. While that is a notable reduction in casualties compared to 2020, the previous year, it is by far overshadowed by the devastating number of cluster munition attacks during Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
[Translation]
Given the devastating impact of these weapons, Canada was resolute in pushing the international community to address the urgent need to ban the production and use of these weapons.
From the outset of negotiations, Canada championed the development of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and was an active supporter throughout the process, leading to the establishment of the treaty in 2008.
The convention bans the use, development, production, acquisition, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions, along with assistance, encouragement or inducement of these activities.
Today the convention counts 111 states parties, with progress being made each year towards our collective goal of reaching a world free of these heinous weapons. Canada became a state party in September 2015 after having destroyed all of our stocks of cluster munitions and after our implementing legislation, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act — the PCMA — entered into force in March of the same year.
Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to ending the suffering and casualties caused by cluster munitions and addressing both the immediate and long-lasting impacts of these weapons. That is why we undertake a significant amount of programming, to ensure the eradication of cluster munitions and all unexploded ordnance of war.
Over the last two decades, Canada has contributed more than $450 million to mine action around the world. For instance, we provide significant support to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines — Cluster Muslim Coalition, with the aim of strengthening implementation of both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.
[English]
Turning now to Bill S-225, which seeks to amend the PCMA in order to expressly prohibit investments in cluster munitions, the bill’s provision on direct investments could further demonstrate Canada’s commitment to eliminating these heinous weapons, and make it clear to all Canadians that it is illegal to provide financial assistance to any person or entity producing these weapons.
The bill also seeks to introduce prohibitions on indirect investments. Despite its very good intentions, this portion of the amendment, we believe, could pose a challenge to enforcement because it potentially criminalizes investors, such as holders of pension and retirement funds, who may be unaware of the investments they hold and may have less control over how their money is invested.
Enhancing Canada’s action on eradicating cluster munitions is a commendable initiative. Focusing the amendments in this bill to target direct investments would ensure the bill is enforceable, clear to Canadians and contributes further to a world free of cluster munitions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for being here. I would like to touch upon two things: One started a little bit in our last hour, going back to how intertwined our two economies — Canada and the U.S. — are.
Does the fact that the United States is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions make it difficult for Canadian investors to see if they are in compliance with the convention?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you very much for that question, senator. We heard from our previous witnesses that the U.S. is one of 16 countries that currently still reserves the right to produce cluster munitions, although they do not currently. We know that Textron, which was the last U.S. manufacturer of these weapons, announced, in 2016, that it was ending production.
Not too long ago, in 2021, the U.S. defence contractor Northrop Grumman also announced that it was ending participation in a U.S. government stockpile management contract to test the shelf life of these weapons.
I would say that given the developments away from cluster munitions production in the U.S. — despite them not being a state party to the convention — I don’t think we could expect the provisions of this bill, if passed, to have a material impact on our trading relationship in this area.
Senator M. Deacon: Let’s look at this from the investment end. Can you provide us any details on your dealings with the investment community in Canada regarding conventions like the Convention on Cluster Munitions? Do banks and investors reach out to Global Affairs in order to gain any idea of when they could be in breach of international law and our treaty obligations? Would this legislation, as it stands now, provide clarity on the Convention on Cluster Munitions specifically?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you for those questions. As I said, the proposed amendment to expressly prohibit direct investments is a reference that we would welcome. However, as currently worded, the provision related to indirect investment would pose challenges to the enforcement. So, ultimately, that speaks to the practicality of that element of the bill, although we do acknowledge that it is well intentioned.
Speaking with investors is not within my remit. At Global Affairs Canada, we focus on the policy piece for cluster munitions, so we don’t tend to have direct contact with Canadian financial firms.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Marwah: Thank you to the witnesses. Ms. Liao-Moroz, one of my concerns is the indirect investment and how you would ever police that. Let’s take that one step further.
This law also applies to individuals. Is it practical for us to police all individuals who are now expected to know where to invest and where not to invest? We all invest in financial institutions; I suspect everybody in this room does. Does that put us offside if I invest in a financial institution that, in turn, has directly or indirectly, or inadvertently, invested in a cluster munitions manufacturer? Would that be practical to police as much as indirect?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you very much. I would say that there are a few elements that, perhaps, the committee could further consider. The amendment, as currently worded, talks about holding a pecuniary interest — a financial interest — which our lawyers tell us is much broader. Having a financial interest is much broader than the act of investing itself. It potentially expands the criminal liability through this amendment. The challenge with that element is that for people who cannot control — or do not have full line of sight — where their mutual funds or pension funds are invested, it could make them criminally liable based on the current wording of the bill.
Ultimately, from our perspective, we share the objective that we want to, as much as possible, deter the investment in the production of these deadly weapons, but we are thinking about it from the point of view of what is enforceable, and what is practical. We need to ensure the protection of innocent individuals who don’t necessarily have control, as I said, over how their funds are invested. And it’s also important to ensure that we do not implement a law that is so broad it presents inherent challenges with enforcement.
If I have a bit of time, I’ll provide a concrete example regarding that. Again, this is based on advice that we have received from our legal colleagues.
As an individual investor, if you were to invest in a fund that invests in a company that currently does not produce cluster munitions, but it will in the future, in theory, then could that individual investor be held criminally liable because, based on the current wording, the amendment does not impose a time restriction, nor does it include the requirement for the individual investor to have the intent to assist in the production of these weapons?
Senator MacDonald: Since 2007, there have been 11 states parties that have enacted legislation that specifically prohibits investments in cluster munitions. The most recent was Italy in 2021. Their law prohibits the financing of any companies, whether registered in Italy or abroad, that engage in the production, sale or transfer of anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions or submunitions.
How does the language in this bill compare with the prohibitions against cluster munitions investment provided in the legislation of those other 11 countries? Are there any best practices in their legislation that we can learn from or incorporate into our legislation?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you, senator. I will try to answer that question as best I can, knowing that I can’t speak with any degree of authority when it comes to other countries’ domestic legislation, and how those are implemented in practice.
You cited Italy as an example, and we are aware that their parliament has opted for a regulatory scheme to ensure the compliance of financial institutions through fines. That example, in particular, would require significant consultation within the government.
You asked about best practices, and what I can say — again, not diving into the intricacies of each country’s legislation system — is that there are legislations out there that focus more on the intent of the investment, which, in our view, would be a very helpful element to focus on.
Senator Housakos: Can you give us specific examples of similar treaties and agreements that Canada is a signatory to, or legislation of this nature that is being implemented right now by Global Affairs Canada?
I’ll use one of my specific examples: We have legislation in this country that prohibits, for example, products from being imported by regions of the world where slave labour is being used. The Canada Border Services Agency has said on a number of occasions that they are not equipped to conduct the investigative work that needs to be done in order to implement the legislation, either because of a lack of resources or political will or whatever the case may be.
Again, if you can provide some examples where Global Affairs is tangibly putting into place regulation of similar legislation and similar treaties, and how concerned are you about laws already in the Criminal Code, and other laws we have, that we feel are not being executed?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you. I appreciate that question, senator. I hope you can appreciate that it’s not within my direct remit or area of expertise. What I can do is take that question and circle back to you with a more comprehensive response.
Senator Housakos: I appreciate that.
The Chair: I would like to follow up on Senator Housakos’s question. I appreciate, Ms. Liao-Moroz, that you are the acting director general of a policy bureau, and we are looking at a policy thing here.
When it comes to an execution phase, assuming that this bill is passed, and with some amendments, in regard to sanctions policies, we know — and we’re looking at a review of the two sanctions laws that Canada has — that a bureau is being set up to look at sanctions policies. I’m asking you to go out on a limb here: Would it make sense, then, to look at the execution phase of this bill in its follow-up as part of that entity — recognizing that you have security policy responsibilities?
Senator Housakos: Mr. Chair, it seems that you know a bit about Global Affairs.
The Chair: A little bit — I’m out of touch, though.
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We’re focused here on the policy piece, as I have said. When it comes to investigation and enforcement, I think that’s something where we would have to consult with the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada — because this is very much their area of responsibility — and come back to you with elements of a more fulsome response.
The Chair: Thank you. The point I’m trying to make, in general terms, is that legislation to impose punitive measures — whether it’s on imported products that were manufactured by forced labour in some countries; or looking at sanctions policies; or, in fact, redistributing seized assets and the like — is a trend that’s not going away, and it’s seen as a pressure point in policy. That’s why I raised it. I realize that doesn’t fall into your area, but I did want to put that on the record as well.
Colleagues, are there any other questions?
Senator MacDonald: We also talked about our leadership in anti-mine legislation. It’s interesting to note that the Ottawa Convention and the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act do not contain similar prohibitions on investment such as those proposed in this bill. Should we consider similar types of restrictions for production of land mines in terms of investment, or are there policy differences between these two cases that justify it?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you very much, senator, for that follow-up question. I think that my colleague, Paul Hannon, from Mines Action Canada, touched upon elements of this during his testimony by explaining the very strong norm and the number of states parties that, ultimately, signed on to the Ottawa land mine convention. What I can say is that Canada is a member in good standing with both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Ottawa Convention, and we’re fully compliant. I think if we were to consider a provision along the lines of this amendment that includes other categories of arms, including anti-personnel land mines, it’s something that would obviously require further consultation within the government.
Senator MacDonald: So we don’t know the answer to that in terms of policy differences, which is fair enough. I’m not criticizing; I’m just saying that we have to do a little digging on it.
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you.
Senator Housakos: I understand that you are here from a policy perspective. Is there anything in this legislation that you find to be problematic, generally speaking, that we need to address from Global Affairs’ perspective?
Ms. Liao-Moroz: Thank you very much. As I have mentioned before, we would welcome the committee further studying the language specifically related to possessing a pecuniary interest which is, from a legal perspective, much broader than actually making a financial investment and could, therefore, expand the criminal liability, including to those who are unwitting investors.
The other element that I think would be very helpful to further examine is how to incorporate the concept of intent — because, ultimately, we are seeking to prevent, deter and prohibit those individuals and companies from investing in an entity that produces cluster munitions with the intent of actually assisting them in doing so. The intent piece is a key component, I think, to this amendment.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our two witnesses, from Global Affairs Canada, Angelica Liao-Moroz, Acting Director General, International Security Policy; and her colleague Ashlyn Milligan, Deputy Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Division.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, and following up on the last question and answer, I want to inform members and our witnesses that it’s the committee’s intention to proceed to clause-by-clause analysis of Bill S-225 during the second part of our next meeting on Wednesday, April 19.
(The committee adjourned.)