Those are very good questions.
On the question of risk, this is the language of the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty says “overriding” risk, but I know that the Canadian government uses “serious” risk. Other countries use “clear” risk. This has actually been a subject at the Arms Trade Treaty meetings that have been taking place this week. Intersessionally they've been unpacking and comparing how different states parties understand and use these different terms across their own implementation of the treaty.
The risk criteria are already there, which I think sometimes is easy to forget in looking for the certainty of what will happen with the item in question. It is really important to be mindful of the fact that the treaty is meant to assess for the risk of something happening. I do think that the more states parties to the ATT can engage with one another and provide examples of what that looks like when they've made denials based on risk helps build international understanding around what that looks like practically. That might help give some of the certainty that you're speaking of to those who are concerned.
I completely agree that parliamentary oversight or some other independent oversight mechanism would be a really good route to go in Canada and elsewhere. I think it sort of speaks to some of the concerns that Cesar and Kelsey raised around the possible politicization of processes and arms transfer decision-making. I think it also speaks to why we have these export controls in international law and checks and balances in the first place. I really welcome this committee having a conversation about this today. I meet often with legislators from different countries in the context of ATT work, and my impression is that it's a very big issue. International arms trading is a very dense issue. The more that can be done to build capacity understanding on that will really improve arms export controls globally.