Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unlike my colleagues across the way, we are most definitely prepared to support this amendment.

As you know, on this very important matter, we have made several attempts to obtain more accountability—some type of parliamentary oversight of arms exports. This is an issue Canadians are very concerned about. In the past few years, months even, we have seen too many problematic cases, whether we are talking about the situation with Saudi Arabia or the sale of helicopters to the Philippines. It is not a small minority of Canadians who find this troubling, but, rather, a large portion of the population.

We put forward what would have been a simple and effective solution, one that would have easily achieved the transparency the government is always promising but often fails to deliver on, unfortunately. Our proposal was to establish a subcommittee of sorts, made up of industry, defence, and foreign affairs stakeholders, to regularly examine issues related to Canada's arms exports.

Some of the members across the way may not have been here when we voted on the proposal, a few times, in fact, in a variety of forms. Unfortunately, it did not go through.

It is, however, a model being used elsewhere. Great Britain, for example, has such a committee. There are other examples we could easily look to for guidance. This would be an ideal solution. The committee we are envisioning could examine not just specific cases, but also major trends, and do so on an ongoing basis. For instance, it could look into the reasons why Canada's arms sales to the Middle East have doubled, or why we export more to the Middle East and less to NATO countries. We could have put that kind of committee in place.

I'd like to pick up on what my fellow member said. Although commercial confidentiality may be a concern, some things are very clear. Just take the case of Saudi Arabia. We don't need all the financial details in order to evaluate the situation in the country or the risk that Canadian arms could be used, possibly making Canada complicit in the events in Yemen. That would be a huge black mark on Canada's reputation.

Parliamentarians can and must address the issue. It is our role as representatives of the population, one that finds these situations very troubling.

In the absence of a standing committee with the ability to examine these issues, we can get behind the proposal put forward by my fellow member from the Groupe parlementaire québécois.

Is that the right name, Mr. Thériault?

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Yes, that's right.

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

I apologize, the new name is going to take some getting used to.

It's a half-measure, but at least it's something. The committee should really support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Ms. Laverdière.

Mr. Thériault, please.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like to follow up on what the honourable member said a moment ago. With all due respect, I would argue that requiring the minister to explain the decision not to implement the committee's recommendations puts some power back in the hands of the legislative branch, as the public would want. In a parliament such as ours, it is always a struggle for the legislative branch to fulfill its role, with the executive branch encroaching on the legislative space.

I think this is an important element, especially in an area as critical as this one is. This measure would make people happy. It would bring greater accountability, a better balance of power, and more transparency, all of which the public would welcome. I don't see how this proposal throws the entire process into question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Madame Laverdière, would you like to add more?

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

Yes, I have a quick comment, Mr. Chair.

I forgot to address commercial confidentiality. I would again refer to Great Britain, which has such a committee. There are models out there we can follow. In Great Britain, they respect commercial confidentiality, so there is a way to do this while respecting commercial confidentiality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, you've heard the discussion on the amendment proposed to clause 8 by Mr. Thériault. All those in favour?

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

Could I please have a recorded division?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Yes, of course you can, Madame Laverdière.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We'll have a recorded vote, please, to the amendment put forward by Mr. Thériault.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

Now, we have new clause 9.1, as presented by Madame Laverdière.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the first amendment I will be able to speak to with a bit more substance, so I hope to have the support of my fellow members on this extremely important amendment. It deals with a crucial issue. The amendment would require the minister to reassess an export permit when the circumstances on the ground had changed.

To begin with, this is very much in keeping with the spirit of article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty. Sorry, but I have only the English version. As a francophone, I feel terrible, but I'm going to read the text in English.

It says:

If, after an authorization has been granted, an exporting State Party becomes aware of new relevant information, it is encouraged to reassess the authorization after consultations, if appropriate, with the importing State.

It's very clear to me that, if new information emerges, meaning that the situation changes on the ground, the minister has an obligation to reassess the authorization that was given.

When the minister appeared before the committee a few weeks ago, she seemed to indicate that she wasn't willing to reassess certain cases. I find that troubling. Perhaps I misunderstood. If so, I welcome any clarification on the matter.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, we saw video showing Canadian arms, or similar arms, being used both in the eastern part of the country and in Yemen. That represents a change in circumstances on the ground. When that happens, on a practical level, we have to do a reassessment, so that we are not just talking about human rights around the world, but also doing something to actually protect them. We do that every day in our daily lives, for that matter. When we make a decision based on information, and then contradictory or new information arises, we revisit our decision.

On the one hand, it's simply the common sense thing to do. On the other hand, article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty is perfectly clear on the subject.

Why include certain elements of the treaty in the bill, but not others? I can't understand that. I'd very much like for someone to explain it to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Any further discussion?

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I appreciate the spirit with which this amendment is proposed. I believe it actually speaks to the spirit with which this legislation is being proposed. It clearly speaks to the minister's having to see whether or not he or she would amend, suspend, etc. It provides different ways that the minister can react if circumstances change. That's a very important tool for a minister to have at his or her disposal because it helps us to negotiate if sometimes we think things are perhaps heading in a direction that we don't believe is the right direction.

Because of the way this is worded, that opportunity is taken off the table. The minister has no opportunity to negotiate, to use diplomacy to say, “Listen, we don't particularly like the direction that that country is taking.” I'm not sure that removing that opportunity for diplomacy and to influence people that we might be cooperating with in a positive way—although I understand the spirit with which this amendment is proposed—actually helps us in those sets of circumstances. When wording in legislation is so stark, it creates additional difficulties. If there's positive change, the minister must react. Do we increase our cooperation?

It's not the way we typically would word things, and it also removes our ability to actually influence events, should they be heading in a direction that we do not like. I would once again suggest that we look at the spirit of how all of this legislation has been put together and worded. I think our intent is quite clear.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion?

Madam Laverdière.

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

There is a fundamental problem here. There is nothing in the bill stipulating that the minister has to reevaluate when there are changes on the ground. We have made adjustments in some cases, but not enough, unfortunately. The bill under consideration still does not respect the spirit or the letter of the treaty.

Mr. Chair, I would like to read article 7 of the treaty:

“If, after an authorization has been granted, an exporting State Party becomes aware of new relevant information, it is encouraged to reassess the authorization after consultations, if appropriate, with the importing State.”

From a very practical point of view, my colleague seems to be saying that by doing that we would strip the minister of any negotiating power. I disagree. Actually, it is the opposite. I believe it was Churchill who said that:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

It was Roosevelt.

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

It's Roosevelt, okay.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It's Teddy Roosevelt.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Peter and I agree on something. It was Teddy Roosevelt.

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

I'm sorry. I have the bad habit of attributing everything to Mr. Churchill.

The fact that the minister can say that a permit will not be granted under certain circumstances or that permits will have to be reassessed enables the minister to exert pressure on countries where there are developments that would be problematic for us or that we would not approve of.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Colleagues, you've heard a substantial discussion on—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Fragiskatos.