Foreign Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2021

[Peggy Mason]

I don't know the exact numbers. I do know that, in all of the work that's done with best practices, they do emphasize the heavy, heavy workloads that foreign affairs and trade ministries are facing in processing these applications. That's why they emphasize the best practices, as set out: Here are four questions to ask; then proceed to this; then proceed to that, etc. So there are ways to routinize and systematize to make the workload much more manageable. Canada's problem is—and that's what I tried to emphasize in my testimony—that we don't have the fundamentals right when you've got the deputy minister coming before you and saying that he couldn't find any direct use of Canadian equipment when they did their first assessment of Nagorno-Karabakh before other evidence was presented. That's not the proper test. Canada is not looking at the best practices that could help it manage the workload better.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

It seems to me there is a lot of open-source data and information on what's going on. Obviously that has to be treated with some trepidation, but there is lots of information out there that's been reported on, which the department has access to.

In terms of having a stronger arms-export regime, do you know how many permits a year are not approved? How many permits are denied? Do we have any information on that? I know, Professor Byers, you had previously made mention of that when the act came into being. Do we know how many permits are denied, other than what was in the big announcement we just had from Minister Garneau?

[Peggy Mason]

Are you asking that of Michael?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

That is for both of you.

[Peggy Mason]

We don't, and that's another point that needs to be made. Transparency is one of the fundamental principles of the Arms Trade Treaty, and Canada is failing lamentably at that as well, so in fact we don't know how many are denied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Chong, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much.

The next round goes to Ms. Saks for five minutes.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to all of our witnesses today.

I'd like to kind of circle in on the particulars of the Nagorno-Karabakh situation if we can, because in any conflict—and this is a long-standing conflict—there are geopolitical considerations. We talked a lot about conflict of interest, but the conflicting interests of the parties that are involved and the allies that are supporting them are calculations that go into this equation.

Professor Waters, can you explain to us the long-standing origins of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? How far back are we going?

[Christopher Waters]

As in many of the conflicts in the South Caucasus, there are competing stories or narratives of civilization, of origin and so on, but really the modern origins of the conflict go back to the early days of the Soviet Union when an Armenian enclave was made part of Azerbaijan. I know many people would disagree with that assessment, but in crude terms that's largely accurate. Then fast-forward to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the declaration of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, frankly under the tutelage of Armenia and essentially incorporated into the state of Armenia in many important respects.

I alluded to this in my remarks, but one of the things I find extraordinary about this whole situation is that in the views of the Armenian diaspora in Canada, Turkey's and Azerbaijan's actions have constituted continuing acts of genocide. Leaving aside the relative merits of that argument, this is nonetheless a situation we should have been approaching with extraordinary care and attention, and I don't have the sense that those were there. I don't have the sense from the heavily redacted documents. I don't have the sense from the department's report that this was something that should have been approached with greater attention than it was.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I understand.

[Christopher Waters]

That's what I find shocking, to be honest with you.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Very well.

At the beginning of November 2020 a ceasefire between the parties was declared. Considering all the factors involved and that there's a whole Russian component to this that we haven't even gotten to yet, what are the chances of the ceasefire being sustainable?

[Christopher Waters]

The ceasefire is probably sustainable for the next five years, the term of the agreement. Russian peacekeepers were quickly put into place, and unlike previous attempts at ceasefires, this one appears to be holding.

There are numerous problems, including the fact that it appears Azerbaijan is still holding Armenian prisoners of war and civilians are still being prevented from having freedom of movement. There are property restitution issues, but by and large the ceasefire is holding and is proving effective.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

You have a minute left, Ms. Saks.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Okay.

I'd like to pivot to Professor Byers, if I may, switching back to the geopolitical concerns. Again, I harken back to conflict of interest versus conflicting interests and where Canada places itself in all of this.

What role did Russia play in this conflict? Since 1998, in the post-Soviet era that Professor Waters referenced, there have been a lot of machinations about this. But we also have to consider our role vis-à-vis the Russian role in the region with Armenia. Do you have any comment on that?

[Dr. Michael Byers]

The only thing I will say is that there are some very high stakes involved in the region. Russia, for instance, is very active in Syria and not just in the Caucasus. But I should say that perhaps our first goal should be to avoid adding fuel to the fire. And these systems, these Wescam systems, are fuel to the fire because they enable the countries that acquire them to conduct raids into a foreign territory at no risk to a pilot's life. They're essentially covert, and they're highly dangerous as a result.

It just so happens that an American-made company produces these extraordinary systems in Ontario, and we allow them to export these to almost anywhere. We need to tighten that up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. Saks.

We have two quick rounds left to be asked, of two and a half minutes each.

You have the floor, Mr. Bergeron.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question will be relatively brief.

We saw a few moments ago that the pre-export mechanisms established by Global Affairs Canada prior to the authorization of arms exports are somewhat lax, even lenient. There isn't any post-export mechanism, as in the case of Switzerland or Germany, for example, which have a post-shipment verification regime.

How can Global Affairs Canada continue to claim that Canada has one of the most stringent arms export control regimes in the world?

[Dr. Michael Byers]

I'm happy to take a crack at that question.

We do need to look at best practice, and some of our European allies represent that best practice. If that means that we need to staff up the relevant parts at Global Affairs Canada, then that's something we should do. This is an industry that's worth billions of dollars in exports each year. It also directly implicates our global reputation as a country that supports human rights. So this is important. We should staff up. We should be able to do it properly. If it turns out that Global Affairs Canada cannot do this effectively and justly with those additional resources, at that point we should consider establishing a separate agency to take over the job.

Thank you.

[Peggy Mason]

If I can jump in on that too, the Arms Trade Treaty actually requires ongoing monitoring after exports take place to ensure that the end use and the end-user are respected. The industry, has a role to play here. Global Affairs at one point, when the ATT came into effect, did. The director general of trade and export controls made a very good statement to industry saying, look, you've got to get on the ball here and you've got to know what's happening yourself. For many of these products there's ongoing servicing, so the company is in a position to have people on the ground to also monitor what's going on. They have to take that seriously, as well as Global Affairs.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

With regard to the same issue, Ms. Mason, Canada adheres to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines, including the following:

2. Within the context of their own activities, [enterprises should] avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur.

Do you think that Canada is living up to the demands that it places on its enterprises?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

A brief answer, please.

[Peggy Mason]

No. That's the brief answer.

We're not. We have nothing to be proud of here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

The final intervention for this panel goes to Mr. Harris for two and a half minutes, please.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Waters, if you want to answer that previous question about the knowledge coming from the Turkish embassy, go ahead, and could you briefly add whether or not your think Canada should pursue the dialogue—you talked about embassies in Yerevan and Baku—to be able to carry out that work?