Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to go on to some questions Mr. Arbeiter mentioned in his response to my colleague Mr. Sidhu's questions.

You said you understood that changes like this might elicit concerns from hunters, sport shooters, and those sorts of people, and that in your view, the preamble protects those legitimate rights.

Is that a fair summary of your response to Mr. Sidhu?

[Richard Arbeiter]

Yes, there were other elements to it, but I did specify, in my opening remarks and in my response, that the preamble sets the context for the treaty. The ATT doesn't cover domestic gun ownership. It is focused on the export of the weapons included in the treaty.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

You've been involved with the file for a few years. Are you familiar with Canada's interventions in 2011 to specifically exclude sport shooters or hunters from this regime?

[Richard Arbeiter]

I was not responsible for this issue in 2011.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Ms. Gilmour, were you?

[Wendy Gilmour]

I took over responsibility for the bureau in 2015. The critical element, though, that I would emphasize—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Please, give me one moment.

Could we hear from whoever at the department was involved in the conversations? I'll quote Professor Kent Roach, a well-known professor when it comes to preambles. He says,

Preambles can oversell legislation either by expressing unrealistic hopes that are not always supported by the fine print or the text of the law or by suggesting that “we can have it all”.

The lawyer in me would much rather have a specific section that shows reasonable use by a hunter or a sport shooter to be excluded, as opposed to a preamble. A preamble has less weight than specific text of law. Is that fair to say, Mr. Brookfield?

[Robert Brookfield]

Yes, but as a drafter of treaties, I would also note that there are often many people who want to have their own exceptions or other provisions put into a treaty.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

That makes it complicated, yes.

[Robert Brookfield]

My response to them is to look at the substantive obligations. Do you need a carve-out or not. I won't speak to that particular discussion in 2011, but the preamble provides some colour and then the real question is whether you need something beyond the preamble, or whether you even need a preamble.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

What my friends in the government sometimes try to suggest is that the legitimate concerns you spoke about would be best addressed by a specific carve-out. This was not acted upon. It's my understanding—I was not in cabinet at the time, nor was I an MP in 2011—that Canada suggested specific carve-outs to address reasonable concerns, but we're going to tell these people that their concerns are addressed by the preamble.

Is it fair to say it would be more clear if their concerns were addressed specifically with a section in the treaty itself?

[Richard Arbeiter]

I would focus on article 1, which outlines the purpose of the treaty. There is no reference in article 1 to domestic gun ownership, which suggests that the purpose of the treaty is not to regulate domestic gun ownership.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

What I'm trying to point out is that some of these concerns are reasonable. There was a decision made to exclude carve-outs for hunters, for example. My concern is that this could be portrayed as interfering with gender-based violence or sales to corrupt regimes, things like that.

My first round of questioning seemed to indicate that Canada was fully compliant with all aspects of this treaty, with the exception—as Ms. Gilmour mentioned—of specific language around the “brokering” definition. The Liberals sometimes like to try to overplay concerns that some groups might have about it, but the “brokering” definition is really the most substantive change to the existing export permit regime in Canada. That's my suggestion. Is that fair for me to state?

[Wendy Gilmour]

From the perspective of a Canadian exporter or broker, the addition of brokering regulations will be a substantive change. I would also suggest that if you are someone who intends to violate the act, conviction of a summary offence is a more substantive penalty.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Did we have brokers violating export permits in the last 10 years?

[Wendy Gilmour]

Brokering has not been covered by Canadian statute, so we have no—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Have we had an exporter violate their export permit?

[Wendy Gilmour]

There have been convictions. There have been charges laid under the Export and Import Permits Act, and there have been successful convictions under EIPA as well.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Could we get a summary of those convictions for the last 10 years? I know you don't have it at your fingertips, and I wouldn't expect you to.

[Wendy Gilmour]

Yes.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

What I'm taking from your testimony is that Canada was complying with 26 of 28 provisions. One of those two we needed to get into balance by switching policy created by the Mulroney government into law, and the final real substantive change is the brokering piece.

I'd like to get an understanding of whether we have had some issues with our export permits in the last decade. I think the testimony you've given, Mr. Arbeiter, is true. Canada can have a role here, but to suggest we had to clean up our own act is probably vastly incorrect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, colleagues. We'll get that information for the committee.

You were doing a great job there, Mr. O'Toole.

Now we'll go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It almost appears that the water is being muddied a little bit, and I'd like clarity. Can you clarify whether Bill C-47 will affect domestic gun ownership in any form?

[Wendy Gilmour]

It will not.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on the line of questioning of Mr. Saini.

The arms industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is clearly a dark side to it. That's what this treaty is attempting to address. Literally, human lives are lost because of the dark side of this industry.

When we look at the numbers involved, I think it's laudable that the fines have been increased to $250,000, but when the average deal runs in the millions of dollars, that's the equivalent, for someone brokering these sorts of deals, of getting a traffic ticket. Would it not be reasonable to have something comparable to the environmental fines issued for exceeding effluence discharges, for instance?

Human lives are very directly on the line here. With businesses on such an enormous scale, would it not make sense to have fines that are tied to the dollar amounts of the deals done? They could be for the full amount. If, for example, there is a deal worth $10 million involving small arms to a third party, then that would be the size of the fine.