Foreign Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting to order, seeing that we have quorum.

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we have a briefing session on small arms this afternoon.

We are pleased to have with us a number of different witnesses from a number of different organizations. We welcome Ms. Holguin, the advocacy officer of Oxfam Quebec. We welcome Mark Fried, communications and advocacy coordinator from Oxfam Canada. From Amnesty International, we have Hilary Homes, campaigner for international justice, security, and human rights. From Project Ploughshares, we have Ken Epps, senior program associate.

Many of you have appeared at committee before, so this is not something new to you. We generally give ten minutes for each one who makes a presentation and then go to five-minute rounds of questions.

We have been a little late in getting started because of the votes, so we may try to extend this a little if that's possible.

Anyway, the time is yours, Ms. Homes--or are you going to start, Ms. Holguin?

Welcome.

[Lina Holguin, Advocacy Officer, Oxfam Quebec, OXFAM]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank you for allowing the members of the Control Arms Campaign and Oxfam-Québec to express their opinion on the subject of the proliferation of weapons and what Canada can do to counter this problem, on the eve of the United Nations conference responsible for reviewing the progress that has been made in the implementation of the Action Plan intended to prevent, combat and eliminate the illegal trade in light weapons in all of its aspects.

We have distributed documents to you in which you will find a report on munitions that was published this week, as well as a press release on a survey we carried out in six countries on the proliferation of arms and other basic information on the Control Arms Campaign and on the Million Faces petition.

The United Nations review conference will take place from June 26 to July 7 in New York. It will assess the implementation of the Action Plan on light weapons adopted in 2001.

Oxfam-Québec works in countries often hit by conflicts and armed violence. Our work has allowed us to ascertain that the trade in arms is out of control and the human cost immense. Today, there are more than 600 million light weapons in the world. Moreover, 14 billion bullets are manufactured annually, that is more than two bullets for every man, woman and child on the planet. Because of a lack of adequate controls, these weapons and bullets find their way into war zones and into the hands of human rights offenders.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Haiti, partners of Oxfam-Québec have told us that even though these countries do not manufacture weapons, they are rife on their territory. In these countries, armed violence has contributed to the exacerbation of poverty, discrimination, illness and malnutrition, and has limited access to social services. We see that every year, African, Asian and Latin American countries spend $22 billion on average on the purchase of weapons. Half that amount would allow for every child in these regions to attend elementary school.

In several countries, Oxfam has also observed that women and girls are the hardest hit by the direct and indirect consequences of the proliferation of arms. In Darfur and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, rape has become a weapon of war. In Port-au-Prince, in Haiti, most rapes that are committed are armed offences.

Our experience has also taught us that it is possible to reduce armed violence through development and human intervention. In Darfur, in several displaced persons' camps, we distribute wood so that women will not be obliged to leave the camp in order to gather any, at the risk of being raped. In Cambodia, Oxfam-Québec provides vocational training to anti-personnel mines victims in order to allow them to earn a living and to return to the community. In Nicaragua, we have worked for the reinstatement of former fighters. In Rwanda, we have contributed to the prevention of conflicts by ensuring that farmers have better access to land.

At Oxfam, we believe that development cannot be achieved in an environment made unstable by conflicts, armed violence and the proliferation of arms. This is why alongside Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms, we launched the Control Arms Campaign in 2003.

The goal of this world-wide campaign is to urge states to sign an international treaty on the arms trade that would govern all conventional weapons. The adoption of a treaty based on the principles of international law would allow for a reduction of the human cost of the irresponsible transfer of weapons and prevent unscrupulous arms dealers from finding loopholes in the system.

Almost a million people around the world signed Control Arms Million Faces campaign. These hundreds of thousands of people, including over 10,000 Canadians, some of whom are members of Parliament, are asking governments to make real progress at the review conference in order to fight against the proliferation of light weapons, which is a true scourge on humanity. The Million Faces petition will be presented on June 26 to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

OXFAM and the Control Arms Campaign expect that during this conference, governments will incorporate a development perspective in arms control and will agree on new global principles aimed at regulating both the transfer of light weapons and that of munitions to areas where they risk feeding conflicts and preventing development.

We urge Canada to show leadership at the review conference by ensuring that global principles on the transfer of arms be the subject of discussions and that they be included in the final review conference document.

Finally, we ask Canada to support the negotiation of an international treaty on the arms trade to show proof of its commitment to peace, development and human security.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Holguin.

Madame Homes.

[Hilary Homes, Campaigner, International Justice, Security and Human Rights, Amnesty International Canada]

I'm going to elaborate a bit on the human rights impact of small arms.

The supply of weapons is an international problem with local consequences. Small arms are present in every country of the world. They are used in every single armed conflict, and exclusively in most. Unfortunately, the problems arising from an unregulated arms trade are not limited to times of war.

We've seen widespread abuses of human rights that are both directly and indirectly attributed to the proliferation of weapons. That's why Amnesty International joined with our NGO partners for the control arms campaign, which Lina described.

When used according to international law, arms can have a legitimate use, and we're not disputing that. But far too often international and regional embargos are violated, or export controls fail, and arms are misused.

Arms, including some those collected through DDR--that is, demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration--programs, flow through regions as conflicts subside in one area and flare up in another.

We found that the availability of arms itself helps to fuel violence. Many small arms can be used by anyone with very little training, including child combatants, and the lack of training contributes to misuse, including excessive use of force.

As weapons have developed in sophistication, their lethality has increased. A few well-armed individuals can now cause death, injury, and fear on a massive scale. Killing becomes easier; it can be done from a longer range, with greater detachment, and less effort. This is powerfully demonstrated in the armed violence that often persists after conflicts have officially ended, but in situations where security remains elusive.

Arms remain or get into the wrong hands—be they criminal elements, warlords, rebels, the ever-expanding private security firms, or corrupt officials within the state security forces. In this context, it is difficult to convince individuals to turn in the weapons, when they see them as their only form of security.

The culture of violence ends up feeding on itself. It becomes a truly vicious circle, as everyone seeks to take matters into his or her own hands. In short, arms in the wrong hands do not give human rights and development a chance. Instead of creating space for dialogue and tolerance, they help keep the setting both hostile and tense.

I'll run through a few patterns of human rights violations.

More than half a million civilians are estimated to die every year from the misuse of conventional weapons, and that's timed out at one person every minute. More are killed and injured by small arms than by heavy weapons.

While much of the discussion of small arms focuses on killings and injuries, the human rights impact is actually far broader. Weapons are used for torture, either literally as the means for torture, or by threatening the use of force through small arms.

Armed sexual violence is widespread in heavily armed environments. Weapons can be used to facilitate systematic rape, which Lina mentioned in the context of Darfur. It's a war crime that is used to hasten the expulsion of national groups, by degrading women and spreading terror, fear, and humiliation in the general population.

Those who find themselves in refugee camps or camps for internally displaced people may not see an end to fear and armed violence, because many camps have become increasingly militarized. They are sometimes used as hubs for arms trafficking, or they are used as a source of recruitment for rebel forces or in fact national forces.

Small arms are also used in thousands of disappearances over the world. For example, in the former Yugoslavia there are still over 20,000 people whose fate is unknown. They disappeared in a context where small arms was being used to facilitate that disappearance.

Political activists, journalists, trade unionists, and peaceful demonstrators are frequently attacked by governments or other armed forces seeking to deprive them of their freedom of expression and association. For example, elections have been disrupted by armed violence in Zimbabwe, Kashmir, and several other countries.

Arms in the wrong hands also impact on a number of social and economic rights. They prevent access to hospitals and productive land, thereby effecting livelihoods, education, and marketplaces.

In this context, we see short-term effects, such as malnutrition and higher rates of child mortality. In the long term, you see broader pattens of illiteracy, higher risks of disease outbreaks, and tremendous impact on poverty. Indeed, this extends to poor governance.

Lastly, armed violence, whether actual or threatened, prevents aid from reaching those who desperately need it.

Warring parties may purposely block humanitarian assistance, using food or medical supplies as a military tactic. Sometimes aid workers, their convoys, their offices, and their programs are specifically targeted. Right now, the example of what happens in Darfur fits this pattern considerably. Of course, I could go on with a very long list.

I'm going to pass it over to Ken to talk about some of the solutions we're proposing.

[Ken Epps, Senior Program Associate, Project Ploughshares]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the committee for inviting us to speak here this afternoon.

Project Ploughshares is an ecumenical peace centre of the Canadian Council of Churches, based in Waterloo. We have advocated and worked to advance stricter controls on the international arms trade since our founding 30 years ago. We are a founding member of the control arms campaign.

Among our publications, Project Ploughshares produces an annual report on armed conflict, the latest edition of which will report that in 2005 the world endured 32 armed conflicts in 27 countries. From our conflict research, we know that irresponsible arms transfers are a proven catalyst for conflict. They increase the incidence of conflict, they prolong wars once they break out, and they increase the lethality and worsen the human and environmental costs of war. As noted by my colleagues today, irresponsible weapons trading also undermines development and feeds human rights violations worldwide.

Despite these dire impacts of the weapons trade, especially the trade in small arms and light weapons, there are no global agreements to control transfers of conventional weapons. Governments bear the primary responsibility for weapons trading, and it is governments that must agree to proper controls. The control arms campaign is calling for government action, including Canadian action, along two tracks.

First, at the UN review conference on small arms--referred to earlier--that begins in New York on June 26, governments must agree to a set of global principles to govern each state's authorization of small arms transfers. These principles should be based on states' existing responsibilities under international humanitarian and human rights law. These principles, when included in the UN program of action on small arms, would hold all governments to the same standards when they approve the transfer of small arms.

Second, the campaign is calling for governments to begin negotiations on a treaty on the transfer of all conventional weapons, preferably through a resolution of the United Nations First Committee later this year. As a treaty, the convention would be legally binding on all states. With the assistance of international legal experts, the control arms campaign has created a draft of such a treaty, which we're calling the “arms trade treaty”, based on the same global principles we are advocating for the UN review conference.

It is important to note here that we see these two tracks as separate but mutually reinforcing. The expectation is that the legally binding convention on the trade in all conventional weapons will involve establishing a new UN process, and an arms trade treaty may take years to negotiate. In the meantime, we want to see government action on transfers of small arms and light weapons within the framework of the existing process on small arms--hence the attention of the control arms campaign toward the introduction of global transfer principles into the UN program of action on small arms. Moreover, if such principles were adopted by the review conference that's beginning next week, they would strengthen the case for including the same principles in the negotiations of a convention for all weapons transfers.

The Canadian NGO members of the control arms campaign are calling on Canada to take a leadership role along both these tracks. We are urging Canada to press for global transfer principles at the UN review conference and to co-sponsor a UN First Committee resolution in October to begin the negotiation of an arms trade treaty.

We were very pleased to note that last week the standing committee approved a motion calling on the government to support both these initiatives.

Canada is well placed to take the leadership on arms transfer controls because it is party to several multilateral agreements and conventions that, taken together, commit Canada to the core principles of the proposed arms trade treaty. These commitments range from the European code of conduct on arms transfers, to which Canada has agreed in principle, to the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions, which legally obligates Canada to reports arms exports and imports each year. Canada would thus be calling on other states to make commitments it has already made and to adopt standards to which it has already agreed.

At the same time, to strengthen a call for stricter universal standards for the transfer of conventional weapons, Canada needs to make improvements to its own export controls. Indeed, although Canadian military export controls are stricter than many, they currently do not meet all the standards of its multilateral commitments. In particular, Canada needs to adopt arms export control criteria that recognize and are consistent with its responsibilities under international law, such as its obligation to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity.

Canada could also make significant improvements regarding the transparency of its arms exports, including a more detailed and a more timely official annual report on the export of military goods. It is of concern that a country with Canada's arms-control advocacy record last reported arms exports for 2002.

Perhaps most importantly, Canada could address the most gaping hole in its arms export controls by requiring export permits and documenting the sale of military goods to the United States. The U.S. is by far the largest military export market for Canada, but it currently does not appear in official records of the sales of Canadian arms.

Members of the standing committee, the arms control campaign has brought together hundreds of civil society organizations and a million individuals worldwide to call for action on the global blight of irresponsible arms transfers. We believe it is time for Canada to work with other governments to do the same.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Epps

Thank you to all our presenters.

We'll begin on the opposition side.

Mr. Wilfert, you have five minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, you've made representations, I presume, to the government. What response, if any, have you received with regard to your proposal?

[Ken Epps]

We have made representations. In particular, we have had many of our own members and other Canadians from across the country send in an e-mail petition calling on the Canadian government to adopt the two-track process that I mentioned earlier.

At last count, I think over 3,000 Canadians signed that petition, and it called for those particular actions. We have certainly made known, through that, the particular things we want to see the Canadian government pursuing.

[Hilary Homes]

Each of our organizations or our heads of organizations have written directly to the Prime Minister.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

What kind of response have you received, if any, at the present time?

[Mark Fried, Communications and Advocacy Coordinator, Oxfam Canada]

To date, we have not received an official response from the government, although we expect we will. The minister has not had the opportunity to meet with us yet. We've requested a meeting.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, we know that when Canada put its mind to it, it showed tremendous leadership on the issue of land mines. The Ottawa convention had tremendous leadership in the past, and it would clearly seem that on an international arms trade treaty, you're looking for the same kind of leadership.

We talk about nuclear weapons, and we talk about other weapons that are out there. But I think the figure of 600 million, one for every ten people, is probably the most alarming and obviously leads to the type of instability that we've seen in places like West Africa.

Can you tell me, for example, what kinds of elements you'd like to see in the treaty? What kind of consensus do you see, if any? I've met with some representatives in the past. Is there any kind of formation of an international consensus on some of these elements that you could in fact inform the committee about?

[Lina Holguin]

Up to now, 45 countries have supported the idea of negotiating an arms trade treaty. There have also been a number of countries—I think it's over 68—that have agreed with the idea of global principles on transfer. Yes, there is an agreement.

[Ken Epps]

In your information, I think there is a list of the global principles we are talking about.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, I saw those.

[Ken Epps]

As I mentioned, those were assembled with the help of international legal experts who drew on existing international law.

A basic point that we are making about those principles and the arms trade treaty more broadly is that we're essentially calling for states to follow existing commitments under international law. We aren't asking them to do anything beyond that. We are asking them to apply that to decisions on arms exports.

From our viewpoint, we do not see this as asking for something states haven't already committed to. It's only a matter of pointing this out and hopefully a recognition that this is an important process they need to undertake.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Given that all states act in the national interest and given the fact that you're asking them to do what many have already in principle agreed to but not applied, what do you think the reason is for the failure to actually implement?

[Ken Epps]

I think this could be a lengthy discussion. There are many elements, but certainly one element is that arms control negotiations generally have always been difficult for states, because they are so basic to states' interests. So anything that's being introduced, particularly from civil society, into that forum is seen with a certain amount of suspicion as interfering in the typical area that states negotiate themselves.

I think there are also industry interests that potentially can be problematic here. We know that the global arms trade at the moment is actually increasing, according to the latest results we've heard from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It's now up somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 billion a year. So there are significant industry and economic interests at stake.

We know there are political interests at stake. Arms, for the longest time, particularly during the Cold War, were seen as a way of influencing other states. During the Cold War, of course, they helped with the whole system of proxy nations, and I think there's some legacy of that.

There are a number of different possibilities, and I've mentioned only a few of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Patry, just a comment, please. There won't be time for a question.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I just have a comment, because I was reading that in your targeting of one million signatures, you have just 12,000 in Canada. Is that correct?

As for myself, I'll be ready to sign it today, and maybe all the members of the committee will be ready as well. That's my comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

We have done so. You can go get your picture taken. There is no doubt that we could contribute to a broader campaign of support.

My question is in the same vein as the last one asked and the response given by Mr. Epps. It is certain that states, and particularly the most powerful ones, consider that the transfer of weapons is a component of their foreign policy. This is obvious. How do you tackle the issue of the absolutely staggering stockpile of weapons that exists today? I did not have time to read everything in your document, but the existing stock of weapons represent an enormous problem, and we must avoid adding to that. You are making proposals and these should be part of a treaty, but what are we to do about the weapons that are currently in circulation?

[Ken Epps]

Certainly within the program of action on small arms and light weapons in particular there is attention to the issue of stockpiling and the need to ensure that stockpiles are well regulated and controlled and do not leak into the illicit side of the arms trade. What I don't think has been tackled and needs to be tackled, as you pointed out, is the situation of surplus weapons, which, again, particularly after the end of the Cold War, tended to be passed on. Not enough attention was given to actually destroying surplus weapons, which I think we need to see more of.

There has been a historical tradition of transferring on old systems when new ones are purchased. I think we need to break that cycle at some point so that it's understood, by states in particular, that as part of the process of getting rid of weapons that are problematic, they need to destroy them when they've stopped using them and not pass them on to others.

[Hilary Homes]

What I would add to that is we do know that in this context and several others, in some countries technical assistance capacity to do this is a real issue, whether it's simply having the capacity to properly run DDR programs and gather the arms in the first place and safeguard those stockpiles, but then also carrying through with a process that truly does adequately destroy the weapons. People lack that capacity. One of the reasons you see, in a context like West Africa, that arms keep moving around is those that are gathered up don't always stay where they were supposed to until they could be destroyed or otherwise dealt with.

[Lina Holguin]

When we talk about the importance of making a connection between development and the issue of arms proliferation, that means that we have to make greater investments in poverty eradication programs and take into account the presence of weapons. When we talk about development, this must be taken into account and we must support initiatives at the community level, at the local level where people are tackling these problems.