PGA Member Hon. Hélène Laverdière MP introduced in the Parliament of Canada on September 27th 2016 a motion to set up a Parliamentary Committee to screen arms exports, in light of the importance of preventing such exports to countries where they could be misused to commit human rights abuses. Although this motion ultimately proved to be unsuccessful in a vote in the Canadian Parliament on October 4th, 2016, it nevertheless demonstrates a growing, concern and activism on the part of PGA Member Legislators in both the United States of America and Canada in recent weeks to find effective solutions in the face of a growing body of evidence that arms exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia may be exacerbating, rather than mitigating the current, grave situation in Yemen.  

While due regard and concern must always be had for the importance of the domestic arms industry as a major employer in a number of countries (including the US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Spain, among others) - and those that are currently seeking greater scrutiny of arms exports are not suggesting otherwise - in particular in more challenging economic times - it is respectfully submitted that when evidence emerges that weapons/arms manufactured in domestic companies may be utilized by a third country to which they are exported to commit serious international crimes, a more urgent/dynamic/effective process is perhaps required to prevent such weapons being so utilized? 

Such usage of these weapons is also, ultimately, not in the best interests of domestic arms manufacturers either and also, therefore, by extension, their employees.  From regulatory, legal and reputational liability risks for manufacturers engaging in such trade, the reasons as to why such companies should exercise extreme caution vis-a-vis problematic destinations for arms exports, have been previously persuasively set out in the context of the Arms Trade Treaty, an international convention to which the Government of Canada on June 30th 2016 announced its decision to accede.

Unlikely today, but is it entirely far-fetched that, at some point in the not too distant future, an international mechanism may be promoted to put in place a 'certificates of approval' process - only to be granted to arms manufacturers who can demonstrate annually no arms exports to countries with a record of serious human rights abuses and no evidence that their arms exports are being used to commit such human rights abuses? The analogy with Conflict Diamonds and The Kimberley Process is perhaps not as tenuous as it may appear, on first reflection.