I agree, and that's why we wanted to include in the act the principles set out in article 7 of the treaty. That is the reason we put forward the amendment.
The notion of the term “reasonable” was another issue.
I'm not sure whether in French and English it means the same thing. I know that in English the word “substantial” is used in the Criminal Code and used in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It's something that has actual legal meaning and that is used in Canadian jurisprudence.
The only Canadian law that the word “reasonable” is in, in English, is the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. Because it has been defined....
In fact, the International Committee of the Red Cross just released a publication that says that the word “substantial” is in compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and is actually much clearer. There's a publication called “Arms Transfer Decisions: Applying International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law Criteria” that says that the word “substantial” would be the correct and more likely one. For reasons of language, I wouldn't support the particular subamendment that talks about “reasonable”.