Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for having me here.
When Project Ploughshares appeared before this committee last December, you heard that Canadian arms exports to Turkey were being unlawfully diverted to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Given the weight of the evidence, we argued for all relevant export permits to be cancelled.
Global Affairs Canada has since acknowledged these instances of diversion and proceeded to cancel the export permits, so we are no longer trying to persuade this committee of what is now an established truth. There are important lessons to be learned from this experience, some of which speak to worrying shortcomings in Canadian arms export controls as currently implemented.
First, Canada failed to act proactively. It was civil society and the media, not the Canadian government, that first identified and drew attention to Turkey's diversion of Canadian arms exports. This raises questions not only about Canada's ability to monitor its own exports but also about its willingness to effectively implement export controls in the absence of public pressure.
Second, parliamentary oversight works and we need more of it. This study on arms exports to Turkey and the subsequent government decision to cancel the export permits should underscore this point. We commend members of this committee for your judicious work and reiterate our call for the establishment of a subcommittee to monitor compliance with arms export controls.
Third—and contrary to repeated statements by government officials—the threshold for denying arms export permits is risk of misuse, not conclusive evidence that such misuse has occurred. In the case of Canadian exports to Turkey, the risk of diversion and misuse should have been apparent well before the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh erupted. Surveillance and targeting sensors produced in Ontario had already been found in numerous conflict zones, including Syria, Iraq and Libya.
Fourth, there are important questions about Canadian policy coherence following the cancellation of arms exports to Turkey. Canadian-made weapons are still being exported to recipients such as human rights pariah Saudi Arabia, where there are also clear grounds for the cancellation of export permits. Why this is the case remains an open question that merits further scrutiny.
Last, let us recognize the legal rationale underpinning Canadian export controls. Despite what the committee may have heard from other witnesses, this debate is not about some ethereal notion of taking the moral high ground—even as there are clear ethical implications to export control decisions. It is ultimately about compliance with the law. The law, both domestic and international, demands an objective, reliable system that is free from political interference and economic calculations.
Kelsey?