Foreign Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2021

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today and sharing this information with us.

I hope I don't cover anything that's already been discussed today. I'm filling in for my colleague, who has an important role to play in the House of Commons today.

I'd like to start with a question for Mr. Cimon, if I could.

Mr. Cimon, former ambassador Peggy Mason has told the committee that “there is an obvious conflict of interest” in investigations of arms exports “because Global Affairs Canada is pursuing two contradictory policy objectives: enabling sales of weapons to foreign buyers on the one hand, and adhering to international and national obligations designed to protect human rights and international security that require strict limits on those sales on the other.”

Do you agree with Peggy Mason that there ought to be an independent body making determinations on risk assessments and compliance with the ATT and Canadian legal obligations?

[Yan Cimon]

That could be one way of solving the dilemma. Another way would be to streamline the process but have two independent committees focus on the two aspects of the mission. They would then make their recommendation, and then we could have a body that would balance what is recommended in both cases, considering the trade-off between sales and adherence to Canadian values.

There's no perfect governance mechanism, there's no perfect way of arriving at an answer, but anything that helps to prevent a conflict of interest is a win for both industry and government.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Sorry, would the two independent arms be your preference? Would you see that way as being better or more effective?

[Yan Cimon]

Hopefully, it would be effective. When you talk about controlled exports, you will always have a political dimension. The eventual decision will always be at the prerogative of the minister or of the government, so we need to have a robust system to prevent cases in which there is an arbitrary determination.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Agnew.

Mr. Agnew, welcome to the foreign affairs committee. I know we had an opportunity to study the CORE ombudsperson at the international human rights subcommittee. I didn't get an opportunity to ask you a question that day, so perhaps I could finish my time by asking you that question today. I hope it hasn't been asked already.

What role do our exporters have in ensuring that their products are not used in a situation that would undermine, or contribute to the undermining of, peace and security, or that they are not used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law or human rights law?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Just give a brief answer, please.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's a very brief question.

[Mark Agnew]

I think the answer is, yes, that they should know the buyer as best they can. They should also ensure they are truthful in all of their applications to Global Affairs and are fully complying with the“aftercare” specifications, if I can call them that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Ms. McPherson.

Mr. Agnew, Professor Cimon, on behalf of all members of the committee, let me thank you for joining us this afternoon. We are very grateful to you for your testimony and for sharing your expertise with us.

Colleagues, that takes us to the end of today's session. We're a bit extended because of the votes, but I appreciate your indulgence. It was a fulsome discussion.

Everybody, please keep safe.

We stand adjourned until our next meeting.

Thank you very much, and good evening to you.