Thank you, Madame Laverdière.
I would agree with that assessment. It would be beneficial for the minister himself or herself to have those hard limits on the discretion for arms export authorization.
I want to clarify this point because I have the sense that perhaps we're focused on the rightly important point of whether it's a policy or a law. That is a valid point and it is a very important point whether it's by regulation or lower guidelines, but the central question is what is the obligation that we're talking about? Whether it's by policy or whether it's by law, what is the obligation? If you look at it—and this is really in the end what we consider to be the main problem of Canada's export control regime—it gives the illusion of strength. You will find scattered references to human rights. You will find scattered references to not exacerbating armed conflict. You will find scattered references to hard obligations, and the emphasis on not being a guideline but a hard obligation, but again, what is the obligation? At the end of the day, it is merely to consider certain factors.
This is incompatible with the Arms Trade Treaty, and I would emphasize this is not a matter of personal opinion or the opinion of Project Ploughshares. You will find that “shall not authorize” language in the Arms Trade Treaty itself. What we're saying is that if Canada truly wants to align its regulations with the specific provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty, there must be some hard prohibitions on certain exports when triggers related to human rights, exacerbation of armed conflict, genocide, etc., arms embargos are met, certain exports shall not proceed. This is nowhere to be found in the legislation. Again, the minister will retain nearly unchecked discretion to authorize any and all arms exports as long as certain factors are said to be considered.