Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2018

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, we'll get started. It's 3:30.

I'd like first of all to bring this meeting to order and remind all my colleagues that we have departmental officials before us. I'd like to have the officials introduce themselves to start with, and then we'll get into clause-by-clause. If there are any questions before we start, please feel free to put them. We'll go from there.

Let's start with Mr. Arbeiter.

[Richard Arbeiter, Director General, International Security Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Hello, my name is Richard Arbeiter and I'm the director general for international security policy at Global Affairs Canada.

[Wendy Gilmour, Director General, Trade and Export Controls Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you. My name is Wendy Gilmour. I'm the director general for the trade and export controls bureau at Foreign Affairs.

[Shelley MacInnis, Counsel, Market Access and Trade Remedies Law, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Hello. I'm Shelley MacInnis. I'm legal counsel. I'm with the Department of Justice and I'm assigned to Global Affairs Canada.

[Carolyn Knobel, Director General and Deputy Legal Advisor, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Hello. I'm Carolyn Knobel, director general and deputy legal adviser at Global Affairs Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much for appearing.

Colleagues, as is generally the case in legislation, in clause-by-clause, if there is any technical advice you'd like to have, we have our officials here to help with it.

I'd like to begin by calling clause 1 of the piece of legislation, Bill C-47, which we are studying and which we are looking to go through clause by clause today and in the future, if necessary.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

This is a question to either of the panellists. How do they see this change or proposal changing the minister's authority over making the decision on exports?

[Wendy Gilmour]

In establishing legal assessment criteria for the administration of export permit applications, the minister will be considering very similar criteria to what we already consider as part of the process. These, however, will be legally binding, so she must demonstrate that she has considered each one of those before making a decision or determining the outcome of a permit assessment.

Wherever we have general export permits in place or other administrative efficiencies, the minister will still have to demonstrate that she has taken these considerations into account, but it would then be with respect to all of the types of permits under a particular general permit.

The criteria are consistent, then, with what we already have, but we're going to have to document the explicit consideration of each of these elements.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

How will that benefit the process? Could that process be lengthy sometimes and go beyond the time or contract arrangements?

[Wendy Gilmour]

We'll have to do, as a department, a full assessment of the implications of the act once Parliament decides exactly what to adopt.

From an administrative standpoint we will be doing our very best to adhere to the public service standards we currently have for export permit applications, which is 10 days for fairly simple permits and 40 days for more complex permits. Then, for those permits that are to areas subject to sanctions law, there's a two-track process. First they are considered in light of Canadian economic sanctions, and then they go through the export permit assessment.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Are there no further questions?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5)

Mr. Aboultaif, clause 5 was one of your colleague's amendments, but he's not here. What's your wish?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

We would like to come back to it, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

You would like, then, to table it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

It's not usual. It's generally not done, to be honest.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

It's because my colleague is not here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

I noticed that but we start at 3:30 p.m.

Can I get the consent of my colleagues to stand clause 5?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I would like, Mr. Chair, to deal with it.

Can you speak to it?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I would rather ask my colleague here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière.

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

The person who put forward the amendment isn't here to speak to it. At the same time, it's unusual, to say the least, not to discuss an amendment at this time. Before I can say what I think, I'd like to know how you intend to proceed if we don't deal with the amendment immediately. Do you want to come back to it at a future meeting or later today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

You're right, it causes significant concern. Because the member is not here, the amendment, then, is withdrawn.

Is there any further discussion on clause 5?

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

We are now on clause 8. I want to bring to your attention that there are two subamendments to the amendment on clause 8. We will hear, on clause 8, from Ms. Vandenbeld, who is presenting the amendment, but then we will go to subamendment NDP-SUB1. We will vote on that one and then will vote on the second NDP subamendment before we vote on the Liberal amendment.

Is that understood? Okay.

Madam Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't think I need to read this one, because I believe everybody has it in both French and English. I'll just talk about the rationale behind it.

This is an amendment that comes significantly from the testimony we heard. Although by law, if the Arms Trade Treaty article 7 is put into regulation it has the same force of law as it would if it were in the legislation, what we heard from multiple witnesses was that this was something that caused some concern. This amendment takes all of article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty and puts it in the actual text of the legislation.

A number of other things are changed in this amendment. One of them is that in all of the proposed sections that have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty we have changed the word “may” to the word “shall.” This is a significant change. Right now it says that if any of the article 7 human rights violations in the Arms Trade Treaty are likely to occur, the minister “may” take action. What we're suggesting is that it be changed to say that the minister “shall” take that into consideration. I think this is a significant change to the clauses that have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty.

We did not do this in the first proposed new section, because it is actually not to do with the Arms Trade Treaty, which is something I can discuss when the subamendment comes forward.

The other change in this particular amendment is under “substantial risk”. Right now, we really need conclusive evidence before a permit is not given because of the risk of human rights violations. In the Arms Trade Treaty, the term used is “overriding risk.” That is something that doesn't necessarily appear in Canadian jurisprudence, so I decided to put in “substantial risk”.

I see that in three out of the four amendments the wording is “substantial risk”, but in two of the opposition amendments that came forward.... I know there's one that talks about “reasonable risk.” One reason I use “substantial” is, first of all, it is more common in Canadian jurisprudence to say “substantial”. Also, “substantial” is a quantitative thing; “substantial” actually indicates an amount, whereas “reasonable” is a subjective thing.

Those are the three main changes we're putting in. What this really represents, and we saw it in the minister's testimony as well, is a strengthening of the legislation, Bill C-47. It puts the Arms Trade Treaty language into Bill C-47. It strengthens the wording, so that the minister “shall” take into consideration. Also, for the first time it says that if there is substantial risk that something is going to be used for human rights abuses or gender-based violence.... That's another thing that would now be in the act, which wasn't before, the words “serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.”

I think this addresses most of the concerns that were raised by civil society and by the witnesses, and that it strengthens the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Is there any further discussion? It's a fairly lengthy amendment, so we can go to further discussion or we can go to the NDP subamendment, and then you can speak to it in its entirety if you like.

Madame Laverdière.