Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50892
FEATURE Two most important North American values clash over military manufacturing. By Heather Capannelli H uman rights to Canadians are almost as sacrosanct as security to U.S. citizens. So what happens when these two most important North American values intersect and put a company's profitability on the line? That is the very question raised by the Inter- national Traffic in Arms Regulations, a set of U.S. government rules that control the export and import of defence-related ar- ticles and services to the United States. The regulations are aimed at keeping U.S. defence informa- tion, technology, and materiel out of the hands of the "enemy," and stipulate that only U.S. citizens can handle such information unless otherwise approved by the U.S. State Department. The authorization is required when any non-U.S. person or entity receives or handles "defence-related articles" that are exported by the U.S. under ITAR. Including anything from computer chips to drawings, schematics, equipment, and parts — essen- tially anything that could make its way into a defence system. At the centre of the regulations is a list of 26 "embargoed countries" whose citizens are forbidden from having access to U.S. military technology and information — even when that technology and information has been exported to Canadian 30 DECEMBER 2008 C ANADIAN Lawyer INHOUSE companies in the defence sector. The list includes the usual suspects — Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, North Ko- rea, and Zimbabwe, to name a few — and landed immigrants or citizens of Canada who work in the defence sector and maintain dual citizenship with any of the 26 listed countries can find themselves being quietly shifted from one depart- ment to another or suspended altogether to avoid contraven- ing ITAR. U.S. companies that violate their licence by doing business with a Canadian company allowing these individuals improper clearance are subject to huge fines and face future licensing problems. Complying with ITAR has been a challenge for several com- panies north of the border, given that human rights legislation in Canada prohibits an employer from asking about a person's citizenship or ethnic background in a job interview or screen- ing process. "The corporation is caught between federal law, which is required by treaties with the U.S. to follow ITAR, and provincial human rights laws," says Peter Keating, vice president of communications and public affairs for General Dynamics. "Human rights is a major political issue in Canada, there being a very large immigrant population. In the U.S., it's not a codi- fied thing." In a case before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, General Motors Defense, a division of General Motors of Canada Ltd. that manufactured military vehicles for various governments, including the U.S. (using material and data exported from the U.S.), was taken to task by six unionized employees who were Canadian citizens or landed immigrants from a country other than the U.S. According to information released by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the com- plainants alleged the company called them to a meeting with R V. IGHT MIGHT