Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Very quickly, is there nothing in Bill C-47 that would take away the ability of the minister to authorize the sale of further military equipment to a country like Azerbaijan?

[Wendy Gilmour]

It is within the minister's discretion to issue a permit. There are specific prohibitions already included in the Export and Import Permits Act. For example, the automatic firearms country control list prohibits the Canadian government from authorizing an export permit of a prohibited weapon to a country that's not on the AFCCL. We have prohibitions in place with respect to economic sanctions, both under the United Nations Security Council and under the Special Economic Measures Act that would prohibit the minister from issuing a permit in those instances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

This is the last question, Garnett.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The prohibitions you just described, of course, already exist and they're unchanged.

[Wendy Gilmour]

Exactly.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Ms. Laverdière, you may go ahead.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank my colleague for his questions. The same questions could have been asked about Saudi Arabia, but we won't focus on that today.

I'd like to come back to the matter of regulations versus statutes. I think everyone would agree that including a provision in a regulation is not the same thing as setting it out in a statute.

It was said that regulations are more manageable because they can be amended to accommodate evolving threats. Elements can be added, for instance. It is therefore much easier for a government to make changes to regulations. That's precisely what worries me; the regulations could, in fact, be used to add new criteria.

In the past, we've seen governments that did not at all support the Arms Trade Treaty and that could have chosen to make changes to dilute the regulations. I want us to be able to adapt to evolving situations, but I'm convinced that can be done through the regulations.

That said, the Arms Trade Treaty contains very specific criteria, which will not be as easy to change over time. These are criteria set out in an international treaty that Canada wants to join. However, the criteria do not appear in the implementation bill, and I find that problematic.

Would you care to comment on that?

[Wendy Gilmour]

I think we'll start with Robert, to speak about regulation versus law.

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes, it's entirely true that the regulations are more flexible because they are established at the executive level. They are, nevertheless, just as binding as a statute. I appreciate, then, that we are talking about a matter of principle as well as flexibility.

I would point out that the name of Bill C-47 refers to “amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments”. The regulatory authority, then, will be interpreted from that standpoint. I can't speak to the full extent of that interpretation, but the intent is certainly to have the regulations implement the obligations, indeed, follow through on the obligations. For example, when it comes to brokering—

[Wendy Gilmour]

In French, the term is courtage.

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes, brokering or courtage in French. The treaty deals with a smaller group, which is what we would expect here, in the regulations and in the statute. Yes, they could be more flexible, and, yes, they could be changed. However, because of the legislation's name and the regulation-making authority set out in the bill, it will have some impact on flexibility when regulations are being made.

[Wendy Gilmour]

I would add that when Canada becomes a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty, its elements are obligations on us, as they are on every country. The additional elements, with the evolution of the regulation to accommodate new and evolving security threats, do not in any way change our obligation or any future government's obligation to consider the specific elements in article 7 of the treaty.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

We could discuss it at length, but I still have trouble understanding why the specific elements of article 7 can't be included in the bill. It's important to make sure that certain guarantees underlie Canada's implementation.

We've seen deviations in other cases, such as that of cluster munitions, where the implementation bill passed by the Conservative government did not respect the spirit of the act. It seems to me that we would have had, and would have, much more robust guarantees if the elements contained in the convention had been laid out in the statute. I'll have a chance to come back to that point over the next few days of debate. Clearly, it would still be possible to add other criteria, but it would be mandatory to apply the criteria to evolving situations. We want to accede to the treaty, but I can't see how that implementation is going to take shape. We say that we want to join the treaty now but that we may want to be able to change certain elements in the future. Regardless, it's an issue we'll have a chance to revisit.

I'm sorry. I will have to switch to English. My notes are in English.

[Wendy Gilmour]

As you prefer.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

You spoke about having different risk management frameworks and a different risk management framework for the United States, if I understood correctly. Is it possible for you to give us more details about the risk management framework for the United States?

[Richard Arbeiter]

Very quickly, I would just like to come back to the previous point and say that we are taking the same approach as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. That means that using

regulation versus legislation is not particular to Canada. It is an approach that our allies have also chosen to adopt.

I also want to underline again that it is the intent of the government to reflect the criteria in article 7 in the regulation.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Just to reiterate my last point,

governments change.

[Richard Arbeiter]

Once Canada has taken on an obligation, that obligation stands for future governments, whoever forms them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much. Mr. Aboultaif, please.

[Wendy Gilmour]

I'll come back to your question.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thanks again for appearing in front of the committee this morning.

A couple of things came to mind when I heard what you said. First, three out of the six major exporters of arms have not entered the agreement. Can I suggest that in the absence of these three exporters, the agreement will not be as effective as we would like to believe?

[Richard Arbeiter]

I'll start with a general reflection on treaties and then turn it over to my colleague. I'll tell you the example of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which has not come into force and which a number of countries have not ratified, but since it was negotiated there is only one country in the world, North Korea, that has chosen to test nuclear weapons.

The argument that was outlined in my opening statement about the importance of norm building affecting those within and outside treaties certainly applies to the CTBT. It has established an international standard that all but one country in the world has adhered to. It has also created other mechanisms to help countries come into line with it. The CTBT has created a monitoring system that would not have existed without its negotiation. This is simply to say that conventions and norm building are not a perfect science; however, we are confident that having an ATT that describes a standard that applies to those who have chosen to accede will also influence the behaviour of others over time.

[Wendy Gilmour]

I support what Richard has said.

The other thing to keep in mind is that our intent from the export control community, and it is a fairly wide multilateral community that co-operates on the establishment of effective export control regimes, is to broaden that to as many countries as possible. The countries that are at risk of instability or are currently experiencing conflict need effective export control regimes, so while the intent of the treaty is universalization with every country in the world being part of it, there are incremental steps along the way that don't diminish the treaty's effectiveness.