Stéphane Bergeron

[Committees of the House, September 26th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I keep saying that if there is one committee that has been one of the least partisan in the House, and that should stay that way, it is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. There are at least two very good reasons for that.

First, with the possible exception of the brief episode of the Harper government, all of the governments that have led Canada since the end of the Second World War, whether Liberal or Conservative, have essentially upheld very similar values on the international stage. On international issues, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and, in a way, even the Conservatives are quite similar to the Liberals in terms of the values they uphold internationally. That should make this committee one of the least partisan committees.

Second, I think that it is always better for us to present a united front internationally, even though we may have our differences, than to show that we are divided. However, what we have seen over the last few months is the Conservatives trying to politicize foreign affairs issues, which is extremely harmful. I also do not understand why the Conservatives did not intervene in last Tuesday's debate on Indian interference, which is probably one of the most shocking issues we have faced in recent years. Maybe it is because Stephen Harper once called Prime Minister Modi a significant international leader, and the former prime minister's description has painted the Conservatives into a corner.

[Committees of the House, September 26th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say how surprised I am, to say the least, that we are addressing this issue today—not that I do not consider it important, on the contrary. My office and the office of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan held discussions prior to the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development so that we could again bring up the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, given the events of recent days and weeks. There was then an agreement.

Yesterday, during the very first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I did say that we wanted to revisit this issue, since we have an open study, so to speak, on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and recent events require us to look at this issue again. We therefore had discussions with our Conservative colleagues about this.

Suddenly, this morning, without warning, the Conservatives moved this motion to adopt the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Not that I do not think this report should be adopted or that this is an important issue. It is a matter of the utmost urgency, and I will come back to this in a moment.

There was, however, a distinct lack of co-operation on the part of our Conservative colleagues, a lack of consultation and communication, even though our offices had been in contact for several weeks about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, I can only conclude that this is a delaying tactic that has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. This is a parliamentary guerrilla tactic to prevent the government from passing its inflation bill.

At the same, I must say that I disagree with the Liberal Party’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader when he says that the inflation issue is more important in the calculations or in the ranking of important matters. I know that our constituents are living with the daily consequences of inflation and the housing shortage and that it is vitally important that we address this issue. Moreover, we were scheduled to discuss this, as part of the study of Bill C-56.

However, right now, there are people losing their lives in Nagorno-Karabakh and the international community is showing little or no concern. There are only a few countries, including France, in particular, that really seem to care about what is happening in that region.

Azerbaijan claims that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of its territory. International law seems to confirm the Azerbaijani claim. However, if it is true that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are part of Azerbaijan, how can we tolerate, under the principle of the duty and responsibility to protect—a concept that was adopted by the United Nations at Canada’s instigation—a government literally starving and attacking a population in its territory? That, however, is what is happening.

For several months, after the 2020 conflict, the government claimed that it wanted to adopt a balanced position, stating that it did not know what was really happening on the ground. It said that it did not really know who the attacker was and who was in the wrong.

However, since then, the facts keep pointing at Azerbaijan.

There was a reluctant statement from Global Affairs Canada, which we actually reiterated in the report, that simply called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment under the peace agreement that it reached with Armenia after the 2020 conflict under Russian auspices. This statement called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment to keep the Lachin Corridor open and call on it to respect the terms of the ceasefire.

Aside from this half-hearted statement, not much has been done by the Canadian government. Of course, a special rapporteur was sent, and none other than Stéphane Dion, Canada’s ambassador plenipotentiary, who is the right fit for all purposes and missions. He was sent to Armenia to support Armenian democracy. Some recommendations were taken from his report, including the recommendation to open an embassy in Yerevan, a commitment made by the Prime Minister several years ago that is finally being implemented. How can we accept that Azerbaijan has, on several occasions, not only violated the ceasefire agreement reached with Armenia in 2020, but also blatantly crossed into Armenia’s sovereign territory?

In the House, since February 2022, we have stood in solidarity in our determination to denounce Russia’s illegal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Several countries around the world look at Canada and its claims to defend international law, human rights and the rule of law, and then wonder about how we seem to apply things differently based on the situation. Palestine has been living under occupation since 1967 to near total indifference. Armenia has been subjected to military attacks by Azerbaijan to near total indifference. The Canadian government is determined, and we completely support it, to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Why then the double standard? Why not be just as firm about Azerbaijan’s aggression against Armenia as we have been and still are about Russia's aggression against Ukraine?

Azerbaijan violated the peace agreements once again by launching a military offensive in the Nagorno-Karabakh region on September 19. People are fleeing by the hundreds, fearing repression. Indeed, there have been disturbing reports about how the Azeri troops are treating the civilian population. There are reports of summary executions and discrimination against Armenian populations. For months now, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have been suffering the effects of the blockade, which Azerbaijan initially tried to deny so as not to be accused of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed with Armenia in 2020.

Azerbaijan is a rather authoritarian state that rarely tolerates protests. However, it did tolerate a months-long protest by so-called environmentalists who blocked the Lachin corridor under the pretext of wanting to prevent mining developments in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact of the matter is that Azerbaijan's main fear was that mining resources would flow from Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. Under the pretext of preventing mining development for supposedly environmental reasons, these activists were therefore tolerated in the Lachin corridor for months.

In January of this year, I brought this serious situation before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. In the wake of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, we conducted a study on this specific situation at the request of the Bloc Québécois. That study eventually led to this report, which is quite brief. As I was saying, it essentially repeats the wording of the Canadian declaration. I felt that the Liberals wanted to soft-pedal, that they were not too eager to adopt a report. I told them that it was the Global Affairs Canada statement repeated verbatim and that they could not be against that.

One thing led to another and they ended up accepting. However, I get the impression that as a result of Azerbaijan lobbying certain Liberal MPs, they were reluctant to take a position, much like the government. The report says:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

The response came. On June 14, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent us a two-page response that was interesting but contained many of the same soothing statements that the government has been offering up for months concerning the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. It said that the government was following developments closely, that it was monitoring the situation every day, that it was urging Azerbaijan to open the corridor, and so on. Meanwhile, in violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Azerbaijan repeatedly resumed hostilities, including against Armenia. This development met with, as I have said, near total indifference.

Azerbaijan eventually realized that the truth about the corridor supposedly being blockaded by eco-activists was coming out. Public protests are not permitted in Azerbaijan, except in the Lachin corridor, curiously enough. The Azerbaijan government realized that no one was buying its story, so it decided to just set up a military roadblock, right under the noses of the so-called Russian peacekeepers. The ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020 was brokered by Russia, which was supposed to guarantee that the ceasefire stayed in place by having troops on the ground. Who knows why Russia's attention seems to be elsewhere, but the Russian peacekeepers barely fulfilled their role. I would go so far as to say they did not fulfill it at all.

In fact, they were even used by Azerbaijan to carry out attacks not only against Nagorno-Karabakh, but also against Armenia itself. The same aggressor that we are denouncing in the war in Ukraine is abetting Azerbaijan in attacking another independent nation, the only democracy in the Caucasus region, where we have committed to defending democracy, yet we are doing nothing. We are letting it happen.

Canada makes soothing comments that it is monitoring the situation very closely, that it is paying attention to what is going on, that it is urging Azerbaijan to reopen the corridor, but this is no longer about reopening the Lachin corridor. The territory of Nagorno-Karabakh has been occupied by the Azerbaijani military. Its population, which has been starving and deprived of all basic medical supplies for months, is now under military occupation by Azerbaijan, which is committing atrocities against the civilian population. Again, this news has been met with near total indifference.

Words cannot express how disappointed I am with the Liberal government's attitude toward this conflict. For months, it suggested that we could not be sure which nation was the aggressor was in this case. What will it take for the Liberal government to understand that Azerbaijan is the aggressor, that the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan under international law cannot justify military aggression against innocent civilians and cannot justify a nation literally starving its population? In another context, that would be called genocide. This is a very serious issue.

I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of the debate we are having on the adoption of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, I cannot help but wonder once again if this is the time to discuss it. I know our Conservative colleagues are genuinely and deeply concerned about the situation because, as I stated earlier, we have had discussions. Our offices have had discussions about the fact that we wanted to raise this issue again in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Since our offices have been in contact, why are we being surprised this morning by this motion to adopt the report? Why were we not consulted? Why were we not even informed?

This morning, I was coming out of another committee when I was told I had to speak. Why proceed this way on such an important issue that should see us all working together?

What we are seeing, unfortunately, is a political move by our Conservative friends to derail and delay debate on the inflation bill. I come back to the comments by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I am not saying that the issue is more important than what is happening in Nagorno‑Karabakh, because people are dying right now in Nagorno‑Karabakh, but our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of inflation. Our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of a housing shortage.

Our Conservative colleagues rise every day in the House and say that the current inflation is unacceptable, but they come here today with this delaying tactic. Someone would have called them whited sepulchres.

We saw yesterday how hypocritical our colleagues can be, and I use that word carefully. When it was proposed that the passages in which the veteran of the Waffen-SS was in our gallery, and even the related video excerpts, be removed from the record of the debates, they refused. My Conservative colleagues need to show some honesty. If they are as interested in the issue of Nagorno‑Karabakh as they claim, they should not proceed as they did this morning.

[Ukrainian Children, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, given that,

(i) according to a report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, thousands of children have been forcibly deported by Russia from Ukraine to the Russian Federation,

(ii) the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova for the war crime of illegally deporting Ukrainian children to the territory of the Russian Federation,

(iii) the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have strongly condemned the practice of forced transfers and deportation of civilians, including children, by the Russian Federation,

the House:

(a) condemn, with equal firmness, the Russian authorities for the war crimes and genocide constituted by the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to the territory of the Russian Federation, in particular through an abusive selection process known as “filtration” and “re-education camps”; and

(b) call for an immediate end to this practice, and for Ukrainian children to be returned safely to Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, I will be brief.

Obviously, I have not been in touch with the foreign capitals that are allied with Canada to see how they feel about the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday. However, one thing is certain. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the arbitrary detention of the two Michaels was a proven, indisputable fact.

In this case, although the allegation may be based on intelligence information, we are still talking about an allegation. As long as that allegation has not been proven, it is difficult for the foreign capitals to take a stand, even if the situation is extremely worrisome for all of the world's democracies.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, I would like to start by saying that I think Canadians and Quebeckers are in for a rude awakening. I think this stems in large part from the vision we have always had of ourselves. We see ourselves as rather friendly, open-minded people, people who seek dialogue and compromise and who seek to end conflicts on the world stage.

We must never forget that peacekeeping was a Canadian invention. We are doing far too little now, but it was still a Canadian invention. That is why the idea that foreign interference can happen here in Canada and Quebec is totally unexpected. People in Taiwan are much more accustomed to this kind of thing. They have even developed ways to protect themselves against foreign interference and disinformation.

This is all new to us, because we think everyone is nice and plays by the rules. We could not have imagined that this peaceful country seeking collaboration and compromise could be subjected to this kind of behaviour by foreign states. It is a rude awakening, to be sure, but we have to face the facts and take action to deal with this new reality.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, I certainly agree that I have this freedom of speech as an elected member of this House even if my political views go against those of most political parties represented here.

However, that did not happen out of nowhere. In the 1800s, people shed their blood in Quebec and Ontario, or Lower Canada and Upper Canada, as they were called at the time. The Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada fought for a number of civil and political freedoms and for a truly democratic and responsible government. If the current sovereignist movement in Quebec can hope to achieve its goal in a completely democratic and peaceful manner—as we saw in 1995 when 94% of the population turned out to vote without any acts of violence whatsoever before, during or after the referendum—it is because these people made it so that we could enjoy the democratic institutions we have today that make it possible for us to have civilized debates without violence.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, certain legal, legislative provisions allow the possibility of designating certain organizations as terrorist organizations. Our colleague has raised very legitimate concerns. If, at the end of a serious assessment, we are confident that these concerns are warranted, I feel it would be appropriate to consider including this organization on the list of terrorist organizations. For the time being, however, the matter requires further clarification. Again, I think we need to get to the bottom of things before moving forward on this matter as well.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, yesterday, in a spectacular statement, the Prime Minister accused India of being behind, so to speak, the assassination last June of a Sikh separatist in Canada, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to express my most sincere condolences to the members of his family, who must be going through an even more difficult time after hearing this news from the Prime Minister yesterday.

Like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I must say that we appreciated the transparency from the Prime Minister in this very worrisome affair.

Like the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I am once again offering our party's co-operation in getting to the bottom of things. We must not overlook the importance of this revelation. If it turns out to be true, it would amount to an outright, extraterritorial and extrajudicial execution on Canadian soil, in violation of the rules of international law, which is an extremely serious act. If by chance the Prime Minister's allegations, which seem to be based on intelligence information, were to turn out to be false, we would have to conclude that the Prime Minister was very imprudent, not only because of the seriousness of the charges, but also because of the importance of India and the importance of the Indian and Sikh communities within Canada.

The tone has changed since yesterday. The Prime Minister is now calling for calm, and I think that is very wise. We need to avoid histrionics and speculation. We need to get to the bottom of things. Calling for calm will force us to consider what is happening. As we know, relations between Canada and India have already been strained for several years. Canada has accused India of this extrajudicial and extraterritorial killing, and India has been accusing Canada of harbouring Sikh separatists on its soil for several years now. India is even accusing Canada of having connections to the Khalistan separatist movement.

I must admit that, as a separatist, I think the idea that the Liberal government would have any connection whatsoever to any separatist movement in the world is a bit far-fetched. That being said, I still think that we need to take a close look at what could have happened, given the gravity of the events.

I want to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for drawing my attention to Sam Cooper's article in The Bureau, which refers to a confidential version of the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, on the Prime Minister's trip to India. I can talk about it more openly because I was not a member of NSICOP at the time and because that media outlet reported on it today.

According to the article, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, planned a major intervention in 2017 to shut down rapidly growing Indian intelligence networks in Vancouver that were monitoring and targeting the Sikh community. Again according to this article referring to the NSICOP report, Ottawa apparently blocked the CSIS operation because of “political sensitivity” and because Ottawa feared it would have an impact on the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to India.

As well, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians stated that, in about 2016, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, discovered, and I quote, “‘an increase in the volume’ of Indian intelligence activity in Canada, targeting the Indo-Canadian diaspora and government institutions.”

If this were true, it would also be extremely troubling. It would mean that the Liberal government deliberately interrupted a CSIS investigation to avoid impacting the success of the Prime Minister's trip to India, scheduled a few months or weeks later. We know that the trip, despite efforts by the Prime Minister and his family to dress up like our Indian friends, was not a major success.

One reason for the poor showing is that the government had inadvertently, although the RCMP was aware, invited a Sikh separatist named Jaspal Atwal to one or two receptions held in India, which had apparently angered the Indian government.

As we know, relations between Canada and India are extremely tense, so much so that it was with great interest and hope, I think, during the Prime Minister's trip to that country for the G20, that we watched the meeting that was planned between the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister. We thought at the time that it would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild bridges and reopen lines of communication.

What we found out today and yesterday is that the Prime Minister instead admonished the Indian Prime Minister for this alleged killing of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil.

I want to reiterate that we very much appreciated the Prime Minister's transparency yesterday. We expected nothing less from him, having been accused these past few months of waiting far too long to disclose sensitive information about Chinese interference in Canada.

I think he learned his lesson. He decided to inform Parliament quickly, but it depends on what is meant by “quickly”. Maybe in the wake of his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister he should have informed Parliament of this information or informed the public of this strategic or sensitive information.

When asked about this issue yesterday, the new Minister of Public Safety said that, since information was starting to leak, they thought it was a good time to tell Parliament about it. Coincidence can be an amazing thing sometimes. The government got wind of leaks just as Parliament resumed, just as it needed to get back on track because it was lagging in the polls. It needed to make an impression as Parliament got back to work.

I am not suggesting anything about anyone's motives. I am just pointing out that coincidence can do very good things. That raises another question: Why did the government wait until there were leaks to disclose the information? Had there not been a leak resulting in yesterday's announcement, might the Prime Minister have waited much longer to inform the public, thereby risking further accusations of taking too long to inform the public and Parliament of possible foreign interference on Canadian soil, this time with extremely tragic results?

Obviously, there are a lot of questions and, unfortunately, not a lot of answers.

We asked some questions earlier. Why wait until yesterday to share this information? We did not get an answer. Why are so few of Canada's allies speaking up? We did not get an answer.

I want to reiterate that we need to work together, to the extent possible, in order to get to the bottom of this situation, because this story is extremely concerning. We need to give answers to Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Allegations Against Government of India, September 19th, 2023]

Madam Chair, my colleague said during his speech that the Prime Minister had raised the issue with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit to India for the G20.

My question is quite simple. Why wait until yesterday, the first day that Parliament resumed, to share that information with parliamentarians?

We know that the Prime Minister had some trouble coming back. He ran into some technical problems, but he has been back for a number of days now.

Why wait until yesterday, when Parliament resumed, to make this dramatic statement?

[International Human Rights Act, May 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that, as my hon. colleague from Mirabel will definitely appreciate, I am proudly wearing the traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt known as the vyshyvanka today, on international Vyshyvanka Day. Of course, I am wearing it in support of the very courageous Ukrainian nation, which was invaded by Russia illegally and without justification. I am beginning my speech by talking about the vyshyvanka for a reason, as my remarks will show.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑281. I think the motivations underlying the bill are really very noble. However, as the saying goes, “do not bite off more than you can chew”.

This is a bill that has very different scopes and, as a result, it contains a number of flaws. We tried to fix these flaws through amendments at committee stage. Some of them were even introduced at report stage. In spite of these amendments, we still get the impression that this is like a patchwork quilt that—unlike those made by our valiant farm women in their farm women's groups—is not very pleasant to look at. Despite our efforts to try to correct these flaws, there are still a number of them in the bill. I want to say a few words about that.

First, this bill is intended to increase government transparency, as it will have to report to the House on international human rights issues. For starters, we had a problem with the definition of prisoner of conscience, because the notion of a prisoner of conscience can involve a value judgment. What is a prisoner of conscience?

We wrestled with a few definitions, one of which was proposed to us by Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada. I think we came up with an arrangement that, on the whole, enabled us to correct the bill's vague initial concept of a prisoner of conscience. The focus is more on people who are victims of human rights violations under international law. We were able to rectify that little issue in the original wording of the bill.

There was also a proposed amendment that was ruled out of order, but the committee nevertheless adopted it. We overruled the chair. What a surprise it was yesterday to see our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, intervene to ask the chair to rule the amendment out of order, which the chair actually did.

I will explain what was so surprising about the request by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

This is the amendment in question: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.”

The deputy House leader rose in the House to ask that the amendment be withdrawn, even though it simply requires the minister to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy. This same government, which is currently making a bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, asked for the following to be removed from the bill: “The Minister must develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” I could not make this stuff up. The government claims it wants to become the best human rights advocate in the world, but at the first opportunity, it eliminates the minister's obligation to develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.

I have to say that it is very astonishing. If not for the intervention from the government's parliamentary secretary, perhaps the Chair would have had the indulgence to allow this amendment. However, it was ruled out of order because of the magnificent intervention from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Another element of this bill concerns the fact that new sanctions will be imposed on corrupt foreign officials, in particular by requiring the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond within 40 days to any committee report recommending sanctions against a foreign national under the Magnitsky Law. I have nothing particular to say about this provision.

We can see that this bill is trying to cover a lot of bases, because another provision prohibits the issue, amendment or renewal of a licence in relation to a foreign propaganda broadcasting undertaking when the foreign country is recognized by the House of Commons or the Senate as having committed genocide or being subject to sanctions under either the Magnitsky Law or the Special Economic Measures Act.

As far as the Magnitsky act is concerned, although the government got it passed, it has never enforced it in any way so far. I must say that this amendment to the act bothers the government a bit because it means that when a House or Senate committee or when the House or Senate identifies a state as having committed genocide, it would be binding on the government.

Members will recall that the House nearly unanimously acknowledged the Uyghur genocide. The government is ignoring the democratic will of members elected by the people of Canada and Quebec; it is doing what it wants. This provision would make it so that from now on, the government would have to consider the opinions of the House and its committees or the Senate and its committees. I must say that caused much gnashing of teeth across the way.

The last amendment, and this is another attempt to cover all the bases, is about prohibiting any investment in an entity that violates the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

To be clear, Canada signed the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. Once again, as I was saying, one cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. In theory, therefore, everyone should agree with this provision, except that it has indirect consequences that are potentially harmful.

For example, the Government of Canada plans to purchase a number of F‑35 aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin makes cluster munitions, though. Is the Canadian government breaking its own law by doing business with a company that manufactures cluster munitions?

We therefore came up with an amendment to correct that little legislative oversight as well as we were able. There is another one too, because the bill would also crack down on direct or indirect investments in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. We tried to introduce that amendment, but we were unable to do so in committee.

The Chair ruled against the amendment I had proposed on the grounds that it should have been moved in committee, and that is true. However, we were unable to move it in committee because there was no consensus. That is why we moved it at report stage.

Here is the problem. Any one of us, any of my fellow MPs, may hold investment funds that make us unwilling investors in companies that manufacture cluster munitions. In theory, we could all be held responsible for violating this provision that says that we cannot directly or indirectly invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions.

We tried to correct that, but were unable to do so, so if the bill were to be passed as it is currently worded, anyone here in the House could, along with our fellow citizens, find themselves to be in violation of the act.

Despite the flaws I mentioned at the outset and discussed throughout my speech, we will have to vote in favour of this bill because—I am sorry to have to say this again—we cannot be against motherhood and apple pie. Still, we have to recognize that this bill has issues.

Despite people's efforts during the committee's study and even during the debate at report stage, I believe we will have to conclude that, unfortunately, the bill's provisions are still flawed. We may eventually have to introduce another bill to fix it all.