Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to acknowledge the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I served on this committee for a number of years, along with Bill Graham and Irwin Cotler. In those days, we had some very good debates. I remember our debates on the legislation to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. At that time, we heard from Judge Philippe Kirsch, who went on to become the president of the International Criminal Court.
I'll speak briefly, but I must leave at 5 p.m. Unfortunately, I can't be here for all the work, meaning until 5:30 p.m., for personal reasons.
I want to start by saying that I'm pleased that a House of Commons standing committee can address the issue of arms exports. I believe that Parliament plays a vital and fundamental role when it comes to this issue. The government shouldn't be the only party involved. Parliament is responsible for oversight. However, in my opinion, it hasn't really fulfilled this responsibility in previous parliaments. Since the committee has a mandate to study the issue of arms exports to Turkey, it has the opportunity to fulfill the responsibility to some extent.
I hope that this will continue and that a regime can be put in place to ensure that Parliament addresses the arms exports issue on a much more regular basis. In my opinion, transparency and democracy are at stake. The government must be accountable to parliamentarians for the implementation of a treaty such as the Arms Trade Treaty and for compliance with the export and import legislation that implements the Arms Trade Treaty. That's my first point.
Second, when the committee finishes its work, I want it to rule on an important issue regarding Canada's compliance or non-compliance with international law and the Arms Trade Treaty in the specific case of drone exports to Turkey. According to some non-governmental organizations, these exports violated the Arms Trade Treaty.
I want to be sure of this. I believe that parliamentarians are in a good position to make a finding on whether the Arms Trade Treaty has been violated. Canada didn't suspend its export permits. It could have done so, but it didn't. This is likely a violation of international law and the Arms Trade Treaty.
Not many other entities could rule on whether this violation occurred. You're in a good position to do so. I believe that a finding of a violation or non-violation would lend your work a great deal of credibility.
As you know, I'm interested in arms exports to Saudi Arabia. I've taken legal action a number of times in federal court to try to get export permits cancelled. I think that it would be quite worthwhile for the committee members to look at the double standard when it comes to export control and the granting or suspension of permits.
As noted by Steven Chase, who takes a keen interest in these issues, Turkey is accusing Canada of applying a double standard. I think that the committee should also look at this matter.
I'll make one final point. I believe that, as others have said, Canada isn't applying the right test when it comes to arms export and import controls. Canada or Global Affairs Canada isn't applying the substantial or overriding risk test under the treaty correctly. The implication is that the test must assume that arms have been used to establish the possibility and necessity of a permit suspension or cancellation.
This is the wrong test. Ms. Mason said that and I agree with her. This would require you to rule on how the notion should be interpreted, both in the legislation and in the Arms Trade Treaty.
Thank you for your attention.