Evidence of meeting #88 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I'd prefer to speak to this amendment first because it will make things easier afterwards. Is that okay?
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I want to first say that I support this amendment. I think it's important to specify that the minister has to take these factors into account.
Article 6 of the Treaty uses the language
“shall not authorize”.
A number of civil society witnesses, including representatives of the Rideau Institute, Amnesty international, and Project Ploughshares, stressed the importance of including this in the bill. Ms. Mason even told the committee that, without this inclusion, Bill C-47 would be contravening both the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty, so I think this is a very important change.
I'd like to clarify something else. As things stand, it would be necessary to have strong and compelling evidence showing that the goods would be used to commit human rights violations, when, in actual fact, that isn't how it works. In reality, if a reasonable risk exists, the permit should not theoretically be issued. Given certain comments, I just wanted to set the record straight.
It is essential, in my view, to include this obligation for the minister. As you know, we've really been pushing for this, so I'm glad to see that our colleagues across the way have come around. This is a welcome amendment.
As for including the Arms Trade Treaty criteria in the bill, I don't agree with my colleague that putting it in the regulations gives it the same weight as putting it in the act. That is something else we pushed hard for. I think it's very important to include all of these factors, particularly gender-based violence. This is quite a groundbreaking element of the treaty.
This, too, responds to what witnesses have called for. According to my notes, Anna Macdonald, of the Control Arms Secretariat, was very clear on this point, as was Alex Neve. Although Mr. Neve is familiar to many of you, I should point out that he is from Amnesty International. The Rideau Institute had the same position as well.
Including the criteria in the actual act will allow for greater transparency and provide a better safeguard. Furthermore, as we've heard, it will still be possible to add other criteria to the regulations, so the intended flexibility will remain.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Thank you, Madame Laverdière.
We will have final comments from Ms. Vandenbeld, please.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
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”.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
We will get to that. We haven't moved that subamendment yet. We're just still talking about—
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Is there any further discussion on the amendment proposed by Madam Vandenbeld? If not, then we will go to the subamendment changing that amendment, submitted by Madame Laverdière.
Could you speak to that now?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
For the subamendment 1,
Forgive me, I forgot to switch back to French. As long as I don't start speaking Spanish, I'm doing okay.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I think we can withdraw NDP subamendment 1, because Ms. Vandenbeld's proposal seems to cover it.
I would point out, however, that the words “reasonable” in English and “raisonnable” in French do, in fact, have the same meaning and that the concept has primarily been used in policies thus far and not bills.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Okay, so you're withdrawing subamendment 1.
We are now on subamendment 2. Could you speak to that, please.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Yes. give me just a minute, please.
Actually, I am also going to withdraw NDP subamendment 2.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bob Nault
Subamendment 2 has been withdrawn.
We are now on the amendment proposed by Madam Vandenbeld. As there's been discussion, we will now put the question.