Thank you very much.
Let me first express my deep dismay and solidarity with the people of India as they struggle with this terrible pandemic.
Let me next associate myself with the remarks of the two previous speakers.
Today I want to briefly look at how Canada assesses substantial risk, looking first at Saudi Arabia and then at Turkey.
Many allies have now suspended or banned their arms exports to Saudi Arabia because of their potential use in the devastating Yemen conflict, with the Biden administration being the latest example. Going by Canada's now infamous April 2020 report ending the ban on new export permits for LAVs to Saudi Arabia just when the existing permits were running out, Canada would no doubt respond, if they had publicly responded, which they did not, that the U.S. case is different because they were providing weapons being used in Saudi air strikes that are implicated in so many human rights abuses, up to and including war crimes, while conveniently ignoring all the evidence of grave human rights abuses against innocent civilians involving ground forces, including Saudi-led forces.
How does Canada explain the 2019 Belgian government ban on the export to Canada of gun turrets, extended in February 2020, because they were destined for incorporation into Canadian armoured vehicles, or LAVs, headed for Saudi Arabia? Clearly, Belgium does not subscribe to Canada's cynical analysis of substantial risk. Canada is trying to ignore the meaning of a substantial risk of facilitating serious human rights violations, pretending that there must be direct evidence of the use of a Canadian export to commit an atrocity rather than direct evidence of a substantial risk that Canadian exports will be used to commit or to facilitate such atrocities.
To help export control agencies in their national assessments—the second professor today referred to this as well—there is a growing body of international best practices being developed. He mentioned the ICRC. I would refer to very recent collaborative work by Harvard Law School, in which Global Affairs officials were consulted. They specifically reference in their report the use of armoured vehicles to transport women and girls to places of sexual violence and abuse.
They go on to say the following:
“Facilitate” is a broader concept than commission. To facilitate [gender-based violence] means to make an act of [gender-based violence] easier to commit or occur. Facilitation can encompass a wide range of acts, in some cases several steps removed from the harm itself.
Canada's fundamental misunderstanding of what is required for a proper assessment of substantial risk in relation to human rights violations is glaringly indicated in this response given by Assistant Deputy Minister Bruce Christie on April 13 before this committee regarding the Wescam exports to Turkey:
However, when we assessed the permit applications and whether they had contributed [to human rights violations], we didn't look at whether human rights violations had been impacted in the region. We looked at whether the Canadian technology contributed to any human rights violations, or any violations of international humanitarian law. In the Export and Import Permits Act and the Arms Trade Treaty criteria that are now enshrined in the act, we do not have the legal right to look into human rights violations writ large. We look at whether human rights violations were caused as a result of the Canadian export of military technologies.
That is completely wrong. It is necessary, in assessing risk, to look at the overall situation of human rights violations. Without doing this, it is impossible to assess the risk of potential Canadian violations. All Canada is doing is assessing evidence of direct past use with Canadian equipment, and this is not the proper test. It's like trying to determine if Canadian exports will be destabilizing in a vacuum without looking at the overall conflict situation. What stronger evidence could there be of the need for a completely different approach?
In summation, I refer members of the committee back to my first appearance before you on this study. I concluded my presentation with a call for an independent expert agency to impartially administer our arms exports in full accordance with Canadian and international law. In the meantime, immediately and finally begin consultations on the creation of an arm's-length advisory panel of experts promised in April 2020 and mandate an independent expert legal opinion on compliance with Canada's international legal obligations as an integral part of the current global affairs export permit application process.
Thank you very much.