Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 7th, 2017

[Anna Macdonald]

It does specifically particularly relate to the use of small arms and light weapons which, as you know, are included in the treaty under the scope. The aim of the ATT is to ultimately reduce the number of illicit weapons in circulation by first regulating the licit trade. One reason it came into being is that there have been efforts by the UN and by many countries to tackle the illicit trade, for example, through the UN program of action on the illicit trade of weapons; however, most weapons, 99% of weapons, begin in the licit trade.

There's this huge grey area between the licit trade and the illicit trade. Unless you're effectively regulating and controlling the licit trade, you have no really effective means of preventing the large number of weapons that end up in the illicit trade. One purpose of the ATT is that, ultimately, if effectively implemented by a wide number of countries, we should see fewer weapons in the illicit trade, which will also contribute to a reduction in gender-based violence and violence against women and children.

The language of gender-based violence is important because gender-based violence, of course, could be violence that is specifically targeted at women and girls because of their gender. It can also be violence that's specifically targeted at men and boys because of their gender. In the implementation of the treaty, we're encouraging governments to develop guidelines. Indeed, we're doing work ourselves to support governments in the development of guidelines and indicators you would be looking at if you were making a risk assessment of an application for an arms transfer of what a risk of gender-based violence might look like to help guide and support officials in adequately taking that decision. It would be a range of publicly available human rights and humanitarian information as well as many other topical reports that might exist on a particular destination.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Cianfarani, I want to stay on the same topic with you. I think Ms. Macdonald hit the nail on the head. The protection of women and girls has been an identified priority for our government, and there is a focus on that in terms of our feminist foreign policy.

Can you also speak to how you view the impact of this agreement on that, again taking a gender-based analysis of this issue?

[Christyn Cianfarani]

In my industry association head, I would simply say that the scope and the breadth to which we apply instruments of foreign policy for gender-based issues are the responsibility of the elected officials of the Government of Canada. If you are asking me as a woman—and perhaps that is why you're asking me—again, I think that using export controls as a tool of foreign policy, and in this particular instance to reduce gender-based violence, particularly against women and girls, as a Canadian, I place a high value on that.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think I want to stick with you for another couple of questions.

The purpose of this treaty is to eradicate the illegal international arms trade and to set standards to prevent human rights abuses caused by the flood of illegal weapons in conflicts around the world. The accessibility of weapons, especially small arms, fuels conflicts around the world and contributes to human rights abuses.

Can you comment on this and on, from your perspective, why regulating the international arms trade and eradicating the illicit arms trade is so important? What are the challenges that your association sees?

[Christyn Cianfarani]

Again, I think we need to ensure that we understand that export controls, sanctions, arms embargos, asset freezes, financial prohibitions, and things like that are all instruments of foreign policy that the government has at its discretion to apply. In the case of export controls, this is the regulation of a particular good being used in a particular circumstance vis-à-vis a particular country.

With respect to our industry, we, as mentioned, already follow three export control regimes, which control the flow of goods and services in the regulated market. With respect to the UN ATT, we will have the additional legislation that binds the Minister of Foreign Affairs with respect to the criteria taken into consideration for arms sales, which is at the government level, and the additional brokering regulations for the industry as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

My time is up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes, sorry about that.

Ms. Laverdière, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the three witnesses for being here.

Ms. Cianfarani, I think we really agree on the basics, including the need for a transparent and predictable process.

I have a comment for Ms. Macdonald. On two occasions, either in committee or in the House of Commons, I have recommended that Canada create a committee to examine the issue of arms exports on a recurrent basis. Unfortunately, it has not worked, but I will certainly try a third time and we will keep you informed at that time.

The bill as presented does not include a legal obligation for the minister to refuse to grant certain export permits. In my opinion, this places the minister, who has to make the decision, in a more difficult position owing to all kinds of domestic and international pressure. On the other hand, if the minister had a legal instrument allowing her to say to certain partners of Canada that, legally, she cannot grant that export permit, I think that would protect her.

What do you think?

My question is for Mr. Woodley and Ms. Mcdonald.

[Thomas Woodley]

One of the things I would like to emphasize is that those of us who have a certain focus on human rights are certainly not against commerce, and we are certainly not against Canadian industry being very productive and successful. I think, to your point, human rights and making human rights part of our political platform and our political strategy is not to say that we want to end all communications and all commerce with a particular country with a particular regime, but rather to put healthy pressure on those regimes, on that commerce, such that the governments in question will move in the direction in which we would like them to move in terms of respect for human rights. By actually putting specific obligations into Bill C-47 itself, we sort of liberate the process to do what it's meant to do, which is that we want to raise the bar for human rights, whether it be with Saudi Arabia or any other country. That's not to say we don't want to do commerce with anyone, but let's raise the bar: look, it's out of our hands; we've made this commitment to human rights.

I'll let others comment, but that would be my take.

[Anna Macdonald]

I would like to add that I would very much agree with the question, that it would be better for the minister if there were clear legal limits. I would also like to underline that in our understanding of the treaty, article 6 and article 7 are very clear on this. The language is that the government shall not authorize an arms transfer if the subsequent criteria are not met.

In article 6, if there is knowledge of the use of those weapons for war crimes or violations of international agreements, the government shall not authorize the transfer.

In article 7, if after conducting the risk assessment, it is deemed that there is an overriding risk of the use of those weapons for violations of human rights or humanitarian law or for acts of gender-based violence, the government shall not authorize.

It's a very clear, unambiguous legal obligation, and it's not one that is left to discretion. It's not the case that you consider the risk and then are entitled to make a judgment about whether you shall or shall not; if that risk exists, you shall not authorize.

In our opinion, there should be those legal limits, a clear legal obligation on the minister. Indeed, that is what exists in the other countries that have thus far ratified and acceded to the treaty. If you examine the legislation from European countries, African countries, Latin American countries, and others that have ratified the treaty, you will see that clear legal obligations exist for their ministers. We believe it should be no different for Canada.

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

What concerns me is that other countries have a legal obligation in their legislation. Canada does not do this, which violates the spirit and the letter of the treaty. I am concerned. Similarly, Canada makes a huge exception for the United States, which also violates the spirit and the letter of the treaty. I am concerned. I wonder whether Canada is watering down the treaty because the legislation implementing the treaty is so weak.

[Thomas Woodley]

My belief is that we are not setting an example. Other witnesses have declared that we are setting an example, but I don't see that. I see Bill C-47 as a sort of watered-down implementation, with incomplete processes to actually bring the intents of the ATT to the fore. I see it as a flawed bill, and I really think it needs serious amendments to bring it to the standard that the ATT is actually targeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll go to Mr. Saini, please.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Ms. Cianfarani, I would like to start with you.

We've heard that this treaty is going to establish a new global standard for the import and export of arms. I'm sure that in your line of work you have to deal with different export and import regimes, and that you want to ensure that the legitimate businesses have confidence when working in other countries.

I liken your organization to the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. If you look at what they've tried to do as an organization, you'll see that they have tried to raise the level to say that corporate responsibility in many ways brings a competitive advantage, that their industries are trying to seek a level playing field, and that an ATT regulating legal trade in conventional arms will be an important step in levelling that playing field.

My question for you is what this kind of global standard means for your ability to do business in other parts of the world.

[Christyn Cianfarani]

As you can imagine, it is very important that we're operating on a level playing field, if not at a competitive advantage, when we have those opportunities.

We believe that because the UN ATT does seek to raise that bar globally, what it means is that no other country where there are signatories to this treaty will be at an advantage for facilitating the export and/or import of defence goods and services in a more expedient or fluid manner than we can in Canada. It simply sets the playing field at a level standard, which is incredibly important given the fact that the market is so tightly managed from one country to another.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm going to read a quote. It's what U.K. foreign secretary William Hague said when they were getting towards the end of the negotiations for the ATT in 2013. What he said about this treaty was that it:

will not stigmatise the legitimate trade in arms. Instead, it will protect it, establishing global commitments on national arms export controls and a baseline for robust controls that ensure countries can defend their citizens without undermining human development.

I have two questions. Do you agree with this assessment, this statement that this treaty will not really affect any kind of domestic commerce? In fact, will it add legitimacy to an industry that sometimes is misunderstood or where there's sometimes no clear understanding of what certain companies do?

[Christyn Cianfarani]

I don't think the industry as it stands in Canada is in any way illegitimate or in any way illicit. This industry, for many years now, has been heavily regulated, as I've pointed out, under three separate export control regimes. As I think the committee has been made aware, the UN ATT will only add two, so we are at 26 out of 28 global standards for international arms regulations.

I think Canada should be proud of its position currently. I think this will increase the level of the standard here in Canada, but also, and more importantly, in other nations that are brokering defence products and services at standards that are lower than those we experience here in Canada.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Going back to my original point, I was talking about the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. They felt that accession to the ATT would be a necessary step to increase their profile and their social responsibility, but also, it would add legitimacy, it would create a framework where they were better understood, and it would create a level playing field globally.

From what I read from your industry, it seems that the idea is almost the same. You want to sign on to the ATT to create that level playing field, not that your industry is illegitimate, but more in the sense that when you're dealing with global partners and global commerce, the countries that deal with Canada would have a higher level of understanding of exactly what we do.

[Christyn Cianfarani]

It's certainly why we called for the government to accede to the UN ATT. We felt that Canada already functioned at a very high standard. This would simply solidify the standards to which we are already operating. It makes a global statement about our position as Canadians and in this industry on the significance of how the regulations play a role in our corporate social responsibility.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

You can have one more question.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's a big question. You know that I don't ask long questions. Should I ask it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Sure.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have one more question, a small question. One of the things that the treaty obviously is trying to do is prevent the diversion of arms. If you could familiarize us with your industries, what specific things do you currently have in place to combat that, and how do you feel that the successful adoption of this treaty on a global scale will prevent the spread or the diversion of weapons?