Foreign Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2021

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was having some technical issues when the meeting started, so I hope my sound quality is good now. I hope that my fellow members can hear the interpreters clearly and that the interpreters can hear me well.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. Their input is extremely insightful and very appreciated.

I think the committee can do some good in terms of improving the process for issuing arms export permits. The idea is not just to raise concerns about Turkey's questionable—to say the least—use of the equipment it was sold by Canada, but also, and more importantly, to propose ways the government can improve the process.

I'd like to say a special hello to Mr. Knutson. I did not take umbrage earlier when he acknowledged only Ms. Fry. He mustn't have known that I was on the committee. I have fond memories of our trade mission to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Needless to say, I'm very pleased to see you again, Mr. Knutson. As you can see, I came back to federal politics.

[Gar Knutson]

Ditto.

My apologies.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

No problem.

There was no way you could have known. All the same, I'm very glad to see you again.

You pointed out—and probably rightly so—that the Canadian government's decision to suspend exports of a wide range of equipment to Turkey has put a chill on Canada-Turkey relations. That is understandable.

However, do you not think Turkey also did things that had a chilling effect on the relationship between the two countries? In addressing the criteria to obtain the sensor equipment provided by Canada, Turkey did not make clear that the equipment would be used outside its borders in regional conflicts to extend its influence in Libya, Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Don't you think Turkey should look in the mirror before criticizing Canada?

[Gar Knutson]

Thank you, Stéphane, and hello.

Yes, you're right. The membership of the CTBC would accept the minister's statement that there was credible evidence that the equipment in question was not used in compliance with the assurances on end uses. I have no doubt—and our members would have no doubt—that this decision was arrived at after a serious examination of the facts, so absolutely....

Notwithstanding that, we have issues with many countries in the world. Some of them are difficult and behave in ways that don't quite conform to how Canada feels they should behave, but we still need to maintain relationships with them and maintain progress towards what we would call “liberal democracies” and respect for human rights and for gender rights.

I'm not talking about Turkey specifically, but it's a process that occurs over many years. Canada works with countries, and they don't always do what we would like them to do or say what we would like them to say. Some of them are functioning democracies, and some of them aren't.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

I hear what you're saying and I agree completely.

Nevertheless, I think one of the problems we are dealing with changes things in Turkey's case, specifically. When we sell arms to any country that isn't necessarily our ally, should the burden of proof not be higher for the end use of those arms?

When dealing with allies, such as the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey, we take for granted that the equipment we are selling them will be used for defence purposes. That is especially concerning when, in relation to the requirements that have to be met to acquire the equipment, they do not indicate that it will be used for offensive purposes in regional theatres to extend their political reach, on a geostrategic level.

I think that is the difference between the situation with Turkey and the situation with any other country that is not an ally of Canada's.

[Gar Knutson]

Your point is well made. In terms of the rules under the current export regime, the criteria for allowing arms to be sold or shipped to Turkey are well understood. They can't be used to batter human rights, for gender-based violence or for support for organized crime. There's a list of criteria.

With some countries, it becomes a more difficult process, for a multitude of reasons, to determine whether it's safe to [Technical difficulty—Editor] ship arms. As I indicated in my earlier comments, countries change over time.

When I was first elected to Parliament in 1994, we were selling nuclear reactors to China. We were selling them CANDU technology, and the situation which [Technical difficulty—Editor] China was at the top of everyone's “let's be friends” list—not today. Countries change, situations change and the context changes, which makes it extremely challenging for Global Affairs to know when to issue a permit and when not to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Knutson, I apologize, but we'll have to leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

The final six-minute round goes to Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the three witnesses.

Mr. Knutson, of course you represent your organization, not just military enterprises engaging with Turkey, but civilian ones as well. When you say that the relationship was difficult after the decision was made in October 2019 by the Canadian government to....

Essentially, they said they were cancelling all new permits, but were leaving existing permits in place, so anything that was already permitted could continue to have deliveries, or even replacements of parts that had to be returned to Canada. Here I'm thinking, of course, of the Wescam sensors, as this is the topic of our discussion.

But some months later, on March 3, 2020, your organization wrote to François-Philippe Champagne, the then-minister, that the policy lacked transparency and was impacting hundreds of millions of dollars in contract sales. Can you say in what respect there was lack of transparency? The reason given was the military activities in northern Syria. It was pretty clear why they were temporarily cancelling new permits for control groups—albeit existing permits remained in place. In what respect did you think it lacked transparency?

[Gar Knutson]

It's a good question, Mr. Harris.

Typically, when I use the words “the system lacks transparency”, it means that we're not provided with enough details. To deny a permit with one or two sentences given in response doesn't do justice to the complexity of the decision or the details that undermine it. Companies often face negative decision from the department, and it's maybe a paragraph. You can look at the paragraph and say there's your reason, but it doesn't provide enough detail. It doesn't provide enough context or the circumstances or concerns.

For example, we'll often have a discussion with officials in the department, and they'll say that concerns are being raised in their consultation process. They won't tell us what the concerns are. They won't tell the company if there is any way to address the concerns. So while you look at it—and legitimately, you would look at sentences in a letter and say there's your answer; it explains why the permits were denied or delayed or suspended or cancelled—I would say there's not enough detail to provide genuine transparency.

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

Of course, your people who are dealing with weaponry and systems are obviously aware that decisions made by countries with respect to exports have to do with relationships with other countries. The people who are dealing with the Wescam group are well aware of what's going on in Turkey. They're well aware of where the equipment is going and what it's being put on and where the military activities of Turkey are taking place. So it's not as if they're in the dark. They're not naive about the purpose for which they're selling this equipment. Why would it come as a surprise? What detail would you need to know other than the fact that a government was making a decision based on what could be political considerations or international considerations, or whatever? That comes with the territory, as it were, if you're dealing with this kind of equipment, does it not?

[Gar Knutson]

No, I think your comments are fair. I'd make two points.

Certainly, in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, it was clear what the circumstances were. But from a Canadian perspective, there was no way to anticipate that conflict unless you had tremendous spies. Countries don't make it public and announce their intention to go to war at some point in the future. But to your point, after the fact for that specific case, the public information did provide the details as to why those 25 permits should be cancelled. So you're right.

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

I will switch to our witness, Ms. Cianfarani, from the Canadian Association of Defence Security Industries.

Ms. Cianfarani, I guess your organization acted a little bit more quickly than waiting until March to write about this, at least in terms of your activity with Global Affairs. Either you or representatives of your organization had a series of meetings starting in December 2019 with the policy adviser for international trade, Nadia Mohamed and Marta Morgan on December 20, 2019. There was another meeting on February 21 with Paul Halucha, the assistant secretary to the cabinet in the PCO and international trade. Another meeting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Harris, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you are over your time.

If you just want to ask a very quick question, we'll have time for that and then we may have time for a follow up.

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

I will.

We had this series of meetings and I'm just wondering whether or not these meetings were relating to the issues of drone technology for Baykar from Wescam. Was that part of these meetings? What was the purpose of these meetings?

[Christyn Cianfarani]

No. As I mentioned at the onset of my remarks, we do not advocate for individual companies.

The conversations we had during that period of time were about the system writ large. During the period of September 2019 to December 2019, the minister of foreign affairs at the time, Minister Freeland, did not expedite or approve any permits during the writ period, which put the system into an almost three-month backlog. There were hundreds of permits for the industry in general waiting in the queue, for which there was zero transparency. Those were the meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

We'll have to leave it there. I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Colleagues, we're at the end of round one. We lost a bunch of time because of having to vote. We also have a second panel, but with only two witnesses. If the committee agrees, perhaps there may be some interest in asking brief follow-up questions of this panel. If we wanted to distribute that evenly and give each party a chance to ask a question for two minutes, we would still have time then to go to a substantive discussion with our second panel in the second hour, which is basically upon us now.

Does that work for the committee? We have marginal room to extend past 5:30 if we need to, but we should be able to get in a quick follow-up question by each party, if that's desired, and then a fulsome discussion with our second panel.

If that's the case, then I would ask Mr. Genuis to lead us off with the first follow-up question.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Some of this testimony really shocks me.

Mr. Knutson, you sort of implied that nobody could have anticipated a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan in which the Turkish government would support the Azeri side. Where have you been for the last 10 years?

The question I want to ask you is about your comment that your members support Canadian values while, at the same time, you've acted as a registered lobbyist for the Turkish government. That is something that I don't think you disclosed in your opening statement. When you were a member of Parliament, you were one of a small number of MPs to vote against recognizing the Armenian genocide. You gave a speech at the time in which you repeatedly referred to it as a calamity, as if it were a natural disaster. Subsequent to leaving politics, you were hired by a third party group to lobby against genocide recognition—that is, to lobby for the reversal of Canada's recognition of the Armenian genocide.

It is clear to me that the Turkish state sees denial of the Armenian genocide as consistent with its interests, but how is genocide denial consistent with human rights and Canadian values? Have you revisited your position on the Armenian genocide? Shouldn't the continuing denial by the Turkish state of past genocide create legitimate fear that the state won't appropriately respond to human rights violations in the present?

[Gar Knutson]

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure time allows for a full and proper discussion on what happened with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.

I'll tell you pointedly that my position hasn't changed because, to declare it a genocide, you have to look for intent and you have to find intent. When an activity crosses the line between gross violations of human rights, crimes against humanity and all sorts of horrible activities—which did occur—you need to be able to look in the mind of the actors and ask if they had the mind to cross the line into genocide. I'm not prepared to say they are—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Are you prepared to say that about the Holocaust or about the Uighurs?

How do you look into someone's mind in any case?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Give just a brief answer.

We'll have to leave it there, Mr. Genuis.

[Gar Knutson]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you so much.

We have Mr. Oliphant, please, for a follow-up question.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would begin by thanking Mr. Knutson for his public service. It's good to see you again. Thank you for that.

I want to go to Ms. Cianfarani, and maybe Mr. Mueller.

Without having a crystal ball, the government makes decisions on export permits to the best of its ability based on the facts it has at play. We are really discussing a moment in time with respect to export permits that were given to a company to sell to Turkey, which were then used inappropriately and were stopped. There was a suspension and then a cancellation. This shows that the system, by and large, works—imperfectly, but by and large it does.

When we talk about the delays in the system, there is a concept of substantial risk. If it were a matter of absolutely no risk, or a hint of a risk, that system would be easy, but with substantial risk, it takes some effort to determine that. I think we are working that out with industry. I know that industry has had the chance to meet with Minister Garneau. I believe you know that he has asked the officials to improve the efficiency of the system. Do you have suggestions for improving the efficiency of the system while maintaining human rights at the core and the concept of substantial risk? That's the kind of dilemma we're in.

[Christyn Cianfarani]

I think if it were simply that the permits required consultation, we would have a bit more understanding of the dilemma that sometimes the government and the department itself are under, but we're not talking here simply about the permits that are at risk and require consultation. Over 50% of permits fall in that category. We are talking about permits to open countries, where typically it would take 10 days to receive a permit, for example, an ally like Australia, that are now taking up to four times as long. This is really the crux of the matter for us, which is that even open countries now have been paralyzed, I would say, by what is going on with this system writ large—substantive risk aside.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.