Foreign Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2006

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

In Haiti, for example, one of the major problems since 1994—and it has never been resolved—is precisely that there are more and more weapons that feed the conflicts and are supplied to crooks. And yet, a serious disarmament program has never been set up. A serious program could allow people to earn a living by other means than theft and the use of their weapons.

This could be seen as part of the problem you have been explaining.

[Mark Fried]

If I could add, the one bright light in this is the effort by the west African countries that have declared their own moratorium on producing and importing weapons, small arms and light weapons. They've just made that permanent, which is something we applaud. It's an example to the rest of the developing world. I should say, for the entire world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you.

To Mr. Van Loan.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much.

There has been some question of the government's position. Just so it's clear on the record for everybody, the Bloc has asked about this a couple of times in the House, and we have made it quite clear that this government is obviously interested in moving towards a small arms and light weapons treaty, if that can be achieved. The government will be working towards that in the round in June on the review of the program of action.

Obviously, we see significant problems caused by small arms and their widespread availability in conflict areas, in troubled areas around the world. Anything that can be done to reduce that is a positive thing. Of course, I don't need to tell you of a lot of the practical problems of hold-out countries going into that kind of a treaty.

It's one thing to have all the good guys play ball, but when the bad guys don't, that keeps things happening in illicit trade. Here you have illicit trades that aren't just state illicit trades, but you can have a lot of private individual actor kinds of illicit trading going on. Canada can't even control the illicit small arms trade into Canada by organized crime. So we see the problems at that level too. Those things are all practical.

I was hoping you could give me some hope that those problems can be overcome or at least positive progress can be made by pointing to stuff that has come out of that 2001 program of action. Are there any successes you can point to, where good things have happened in the world as a result of it?

[Ken Epps]

I can point to a very specific example, because it's one Project Ploughshares has been involved in. The Nairobi declaration and protocol process that emerged essentially since 2001 has drawn together east African and Horn of Africa countries to look at a regional approach to addressing small arms and light weapons. As a result of that, they've come to some standards on how to deal with movements of weapons in their region.

They now have a set of national focal points within their governments, which they didn't have previous to 2001, where there are people who are explicitly given the task of monitoring certain aspects of small arms that correspond to commitments under the program of action. There is also a regional office that is in communication with all those national focal points. There is a civil society network that's following and monitoring how these national focal points and the regional office are operating, which I think is equally important.

I think there we see a situation where a number of groups that now have some expertise in arms issues that didn't exist a few years ago are starting to work with local governments to try to address the small arms problem. So that's a very specific example of where there has been some movement forward since 2001.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Notwithstanding the government's position, it will be interesting to see how you could achieve this. The concern would be about repressive regimes and others using this small arms control to repress further on that.

What are the safeguards to ensure that the pendulum does not swing to the other side? It's great to say that we're going to have a small arms UN convention. Everybody agrees with that. You appropriately highlighted all the damage it does and all the conflicts it causes. But we don't want to go where the pendulum swings slightly on the other side; we don't want oppressive regimes using this. What safeguards are you proposing or do you think your group can propose to ensure that we have a good arms control regime, not one that can be hijacked?

[Mark Fried]

I wonder if I understand your question properly. You're suggesting that people living under a repressive regime should get guns in order to rebel and fight against a violent revolution?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No. I'm asking for.... You see, in a fair exchange you can use exactly what you just said, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to get at what the safeguards are. Let's be realistic: we're not living in a dream world here; we know that it can be used. What are the safeguards in this arms control deal so that they're not used in a repressive manner?

[Mark Fried]

What these global principles would do would be to set an international standard by which national governments could be held to account. They would be held to account only to the degree that people in their own countries are going to hold them to account. Global standards will give a tool by which civil society movements in each country can insist that their governments live up to these agreements. The only real safeguard is a strong peoples' movement that is insisting on no more guns, or insisting on some control of these guns. That's part of the work we're involved in, supporting organizations overseas to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Fried.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know the time is short.

I want to congratulate all three, Oxfam, Amnesty International, and Project Ploughshares, for the real leadership you provide around increasing public awareness.

I have some quick questions, as I know we're going to need to wrap up

With respect to the upcoming UN review conference, is there an NGO component, as is traditionally the case with most UN conferences like this one, and will your four organizations be represented?

Next, following the 2001 conference, there was the customary report from the Canadian government about its current position. I know I should really be asking the government this question, but I don't get to ask the government, so I'll ask you whether you've been consulted on that, which is also a fairly traditional approach.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Canada is a big manufacturer of small arms and light weapons. What I believe we are, though, is a big manufacturer of a lot of bullets. I'm just wondering if you could speak to that issue about whether the ammunition is fully captured in the discussion about treaties and controls and so on, and whether there are things that Canada should be taking more seriously in that regard.

Finally, I wonder whether there is a possibility of your supplying some further information to the committee. I'm very concerned about your brief comment concerning Canadian exports to the U.S. escaping all transparency. I would ask you to comment and enlighten us in any way you can on that.

[Lina Holguin]

On the question of NGO presence at the UN, yes, there is going to be a huge NGO presence from all the different members of IANSA and representatives from many, many organizations. I'm going to be there for Oxfam Quebec and Oxfam Canada. There are many, many NGOs coming from all over the world, and there are going to be many activities.

As I said in my presentation notes, we're going to be delivering the “Million Faces Petition”. I don't have time to circulate it, but here is the “10,000 Faces of Canada” part to Kofi Annan.

[Ken Epps]

You'll have to remind me of some of the other questions, starting with the exports to the U.S. Were you asking for further details on that?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

In terms of the transparency and disclosure of that information, could you comment further? And if you possibly have some further information, you could share it with committee members in writing.

[Ken Epps]

The situation is that there's a special arrangement between Canada and the U.S. in terms of military trade. As a result, there are no export permits required for the transfer of military goods across the border. Because the current process of monitoring arms exports in Canada is based on following export permits, that is why that particular trade cannot be monitored.

Project Ploughshares has tried to estimate that trade, based on other sources, including the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which operates as a go-between for quite a number of the contracts for military goods between Canada and the U.S. That's why we know those exports are such a large part of Canadian trade. We can estimate the size of that trade at about twice the volume to all other countries combined, so it is a very large component of Canada's trade.

On the issue of bullets and ammunition, that certainly is something we would like to see covered by an arms trade treaty, and a small arms agreement on transfers as well. It's currently being left out of negotiations in the UN process, but there are governments—and certainly NGOs—who want to see that back in the negotiations and dealt with.

In terms of NGO input into the national committee's report and Canada reporting on its commitments under the program of action, yes, we did have input into that process. In fact, the three of us here were represented at the national committee meeting, where we had input. That tradition is being maintained.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

But at this point, do you know what the report and recommendations of the Canadian government are, or do you go to the review conference to find out?

[Ken Epps]

That's a good question, to which I don't have a full answer. We certainly saw the draft report as part of that process, and our understanding is that there will be some amendments to that draft report, but not significant ones. We haven't actually seen the final document. I can only assume that it will be tabled at the review conference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

When you're speaking in the same breath about Canada, Guatemala, and Haiti, and are talking about problems with arms—with your statistics saying that some 68% of people in Canada, or 92%, think there should be better control of arms, even in Canada—I think we should really be looking at apples and oranges when comparing the two. Here in Canada, we have very tough and stringent laws for licensing and training to be able to have a firearm, and we have limitations that you can't have automatic weapons and assault weapons unless you have specific licensing for them. But when you're talking about six out of ten people thinking it is too easy to obtain a gun in Canada, is this statistic intended for the legal attainment of firearms or their illegal attainment?

[Mark Fried]

I'd be happy to answer that, because this is a poll we commissioned. It is an opinion poll of people's sense of things. Presumably it refers to illegal and legal, but people sense that it's too easy to obtain a weapon. In each of those countries, people overwhelmingly felt it was too easy to obtain a weapon.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I think you know we well recognize the fact that there has to be a curtailment of the illegal firearms coming in across the border.

Also, when you're talking of the second of your accepted principles, including the “prohibition on the use of arms that are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”, or the “prohibition on weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians”, are those not really all forms of rifles, shotguns, handguns, pistols, and not just limited to military-style assault weapons? You're really talking about a virtual ban on every form of firearm that is made.

[Mark Fried]

First, we're not talking about a ban on the manufacture of weapons; we're talking about regulation of the transfer of weapons.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Transporting and shipping between countries.

[Mark Fried]

We're saying that for arms that are going to violate international humanitarian law, which particularly applies to conflict situations, there should be regulation of the transfer of those sorts of weapons into conflict situations.