Evidence of meeting #26 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was technology.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Writer on Turkish and Middle Eastern issues, As an Individual
Could I answer that too?
5:10 p.m.
Writer on Turkish and Middle Eastern issues, As an Individual
Thank you.
I think you also have to look at Libya in 2011. It was NATO that got involved in Libya. We had a Canadian general in charge of that NATO operation. Of course, the country fell apart and entered into a civil war. You now have the UN-recognized government in Tripoli being surrounded and almost taken over by General Haftar, who is considered to be a warlord. Turkey has stepped in. The drones, with Canadian technology, have turned the tide and now we have a ceasefire and elections, so maybe that should be seen as a positive—I think so.
When I listen to the Turkish perspective of their dealings in Syria against the Kurdish YPG, they just say that's an extension of the PKK, which is an organization that Canada recognizes as a terrorist group. For them it's a case of looking out for their own immediate interests. I understand why they would be using those drones, because it's providing security to them as a country.
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I'm a bit concerned by the equivalence that Chris is drawing here because, clearly, the NATO intervention had an international umbrella of agreement that was not granted likewise to Turkey for its own intervention. To the contrary, there is strong disagreement between Turkey and the European Union, and countries such as Turkey and France, on everything from the Turkish intervention to Turkish arms exports to Libya.
I think there are limits to the equivalencies that can be drawn here.
5:10 p.m.
Writer on Turkish and Middle Eastern issues, As an Individual
I would just add, though, that France had its own interests in Libya as well. You saw that play out in the Mediterranean between naval ships.
I think the lesson here is that when we as a country sell weapons into the Middle East, it comes with all of this that we're speaking about, and we have to understand that.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Turkey's foreign minister has stated that Canada has a double standard in terms of our policy, because we see no problem in exporting arms to countries that are militarily involved in the crisis in Yemen, where one of the century's greatest human tragedies is unfolding.
Is he right?
5:10 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Once again, I am afraid that the statement is not exactly an equivalent, because Saudi Arabia has given assurances, and means of verifying them, about the use of the arms. They have not lied about those assurances, as Turkey has done. To my knowledge, so far, Canadian arms exported to Saudi Arabia have been used according to the conditions under which the export permits were issued.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.
Our final intervention this afternoon goes to Mr. Harris.
Again, Mr. Harris, you have six minutes, please.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today and helping us out.
I want to ask a question of Dr. Momani.
The use of drones you referred to as a feature of modern warfare, being cheap and easy to come by and maybe capable of being be used by people who don't otherwise have access to full military equipment.
Do you fear that this will make for instability in the future, if someone can use money to buy drones and doesn't have to risk their own people to use them and inflict damage on someone else?
We know they've been used for targeted killings and can easily be used to target civilians, etc. Is there a human rights concern with that technology being proliferated in the world today? Is there anything we can do about it?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Mr. Harris, if you'll excuse me for one second, for the next question that you ask, can you raise your mike slightly for interpretation? They're having trouble picking you up.
We'll turn it over to the witness. Thanks.
5:15 p.m.
Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
To your question, and it's a good one, it is a game-changer. However, it's nothing special about the technology. It's the fact that it's new. It's an emerging technology. We're going to see lots of questions about the use of drones in almost every aspect of our lives. It really is going to be a game-changer in so many things, from the way that Amazon delivers packages to certainly the way that wars are being fought.
They're getting better. It is one of those technologies that continues to get smaller and lighter, with a longer battery life, better camera, sensors—you name it. I think it is definitely going to be a game-changer. The point is that where there was a cost barrier to having a full-fledged air force, that is now being eroded, because this technology is very easily accessible. It's cheap.
Increasingly, again, to the point that was brought up earlier, the Chinese are in the game as well. I wouldn't say they've surpassed the west by any standard, but they're not far. I don't think the Chinese have any—certainly I'm pretty sure they don't—human rights controls or export controls on that technology, or any technology that they sell.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
It's important for us to keep our eyes on this feature of modern warfare all right. Thank you.
Dr. Kilford, thank you for your service.
I have a technical question for you about the drones used—and maybe you don't know the answer—in Nagorno-Karabakh. You referred to target acquisition as a feature of these drones. Is that the sense of identifying targets for other people to use, or are they target acquisition drones, in the sense that they are armed drones for executing armaments against targets?
5:15 p.m.
Writer on Turkish and Middle Eastern issues, As an Individual
The Bayraktar TB2 drones can loiter overhead for up to 25 hours. They have surveillance capabilities on board, but they also have four weapons hard points. That means that once they identify a target, they can also launch a rocket or a missile against that target. It's a total package.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I have a question for Dr. Leuprecht, as well, in keeping with his pre-circulated speaking notes.
You made a reference to the public information available, based on Turkey's actual involvement and other activities that were going on:
Since this is public information, there is little doubt that the inter-departmental risk assessment provided to the Minister on this particular matter would have flagged that the granting of this particular permit was a high-risk proposition. At the time, Turkey was already conducting military exercises with Azerbaijan and encouraging Azerbaijan to change the status quo—by military means.
Then you said:
The Minister exercised his discretion in approving the permit anyway.
I gather from that, you feel the department was deficient in assessing the risk. Although, we see, based on the memorandum that was released with the documents—the memorandum of action, as it was referred to, from September 2—that in fact the department is saying it meets the requirements of the ATT but has some exceptions offered, and recommended that you approve the issuance of the applications in the attached annexes. That seems to me that they did approve them.
I conclude, then, that you must believe the assessment was inadequate by the department.
April 13th, 2021 / 5:20 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
The assessment would have been based on the information the department had. I think the department could have perhaps had better information, perhaps about illicit technology transfer, had it had individuals—diplomats—on the ground. As the other witnesses raised, this technology is highly challenging because it can be dual use for surveillance and humanitarian purposes, or for conflict purposes.
That's why the maximum strategic assessment is absolutely essential. We also want to leverage this technology for stability in a highly unstable world, so simply not selling it to anyone ever again is also not a solution here.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I understand there are a fair number of permits being issued and requested and all of that, but we do know—not everybody else, but it's common knowledge for those who pay attention to these things—that these sensors were being used by Bayraktar for their drone and that's what they were being sold to them for. The representative of the department talked about how they have intense discussions and relationships with the manufacturer, so they do know where they're going.
Would you recommend that greater due diligence be pursued by the department when assessing these things, particularly when it's obvious from public sources that drones were being sold to Azerbaijan in the summer of 2020?
5:20 p.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
These drones contain not just Canadian technology, but also German and American technology and they're then built under licence by Turkey, so there's probably opportunity for greater coordination. There is opportunity for us. The data points that we now have of Turkey's behaviour would certainly flow into a future risk assessment for future permits toward Turkey. I think the minister's decision indicates the inference that he has drawn from those data points.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Professor Leuprecht.
Thank you, Mr. Harris.
My dear colleagues, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses this afternoon for their expertise and their testimony.
Thank you so much for being with us. It's been a very productive discussion.
We will let you disconnect. We have a little bit more to discuss on Mr. Harris's motion. Thank you for your presence this afternoon. Stay safe and we'll see you again.
Madam Clerk, just to take up again the discussion that we left off from earlier, we have circulated through you to members the March 11 version of the motion, which we believe to be very closely related, if not identical to the motion that was moved by Mr. Harris. That's in your members' email inboxes. We circulated it because we do have it in both official languages.
Mr. Harris, I'm wondering if I could ask you to re-read your motion with interpretation being provided. Colleagues can follow along and form their view as to how similar the two motions are.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Certainly. I do want to thank the clerk for her diligence in getting this translated so quickly. That is much appreciated and I'm glad that all members have both matters now before them in both official languages. Thank you for enabling that.
They are very similar. The first sentence is exactly the same:
That the committee render public the documents provided to date by Global Affairs Canada, pursuant to the order for the production of papers adopted on October 29, 2020;
The wording of the second sentence in the new motion second reads:
and reserves the right to be granted unfettered access to the unredacted documents upon request to officials at Global Affairs Canada in accordance with the motion.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Thank you very much, Mr. Harris.
Is there any further discussion on the motion? Colleagues, please use the “raise hand” feature as we did in the previous segment.
Mr. Oliphant.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I like the wording of the original motion better, but this is fine, so that we don't extend our discussion a long time. I'm fine with this motion and I suspect the Liberals will vote for it.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sven Spengemann
Colleagues, is there any other discussion or debate on the motion presented by Mr. Harris?
I don't see any hands raised at the moment. I just want to make sure that nobody is experiencing any technical challenges that would prevent that.
Seeing none, colleagues, is it the will of the committee by unanimous consent to adopt Mr. Harris's motion as presented? Are there any opposed?
(Motion agreed to)
Colleagues, I thank you for the indulgence this afternoon. We're finishing a bit early, but we've had a fulsome discussion with our witnesses.
Please keep safe.
We stand adjourned until our next meeting.