Bill C-47 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments)

This enactment amends the Export and Import Permits Act to
(a) define the term “broker” and to establish a framework to control brokering that takes place in Canada and that is undertaken by Canadians outside Canada;
(b) require that the Minister take into account certain considerations
before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit;
(c) authorize the making of regulations that set out additional mandatory considerations that the Minister is required to take into account before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit;
(d) set May 31 as the date by which the Minister must table in both Houses of Parliament a report of the operations under the Act in the preceding year and a report on military exports in the preceding year;
(e) increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence to $250,000;
(f) replace the requirement that only countries with which Canada has an intergovernmental arrangement may be added to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List by a requirement that a country may be added to the list only on the recommendation of the Minister made after consultation with the Minister of National Defence; and
(g) add a new purpose for which an article may be added to an Export Control List.
The enactment amends the Criminal Code to include, for interception of private communications purposes, the offence of brokering in the definition of “offence” in section 183.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and also for her tenacity and professionalism when asking questions in the House despite the problems with her voice.

It is true that some countries have not signed on to the treaty. Very few countries have not signed it. The United States has signed it. They have not ratified it, but they have signed it. Unfortunately, in all such situations, there will always be countries that do not want to play by the rules. That is why I am so troubled by this bill. Canada is not really playing by the rules. When Canada is singled out in Geneva and told that it is not creating a good legislative measure, this means that it is not playing by the rules. It is making it look like it is acceding to the treaty, when in fact it is only doing so halfway. That is simply not right.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join others in saluting my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her tenacity and her long-standing support of the treaty as well as for pointing out the government's false narrative, if I can call it that, about the bill, the NDP's position on the bill, the position of those 33,000 people who provided their input on the bill, and the experts who agree that it is far from a good arrangement.

In her speech, the member talked about social media and Project Ploughshares, a well-known group, which suggested that one must distinguish between the treaty and Bill C-47. It has long supported the treaty, as has she, but it points out that “shortcomings” remain in the export controls, such as the loophole with respect to exports to the United States. That was the burden of the amendment by my colleague. I would ask her to elaborate on that so-called loophole.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do not like calling it a loophole, because when a loophole covers almost half the treaty it becomes something else entirely. Perhaps someone has a better idea of what word we can use. “Gaping hole” is a good expression. These are just some of the points that experts raised from the outset. They mentioned this gaping hole with respect to our exports to the U.S. They brought up the problems with the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of Defence, and they said that existing permits should be reviewed in the event of new developments. If I recall correctly, they pointed out 10 things that need to be fixed in the bill.

The government finally agreed to fix a few things, but not the most important or biggest shortcomings. This is why everyone, aside from the people on the other side of the House, think this is a bad bill. If we truly want to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, we need to stay true to the treaty. We need to do it right.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her remarks.

I would like to ask her if she thinks that what we are seeing in this bill is textbook Liberal government. Its tendency is to introduce a bill and telegraph appealing messaging about progressive values and improving society, but anyone who looks beneath the surface can see that business takes precedence over everything else. The same thing is happening with tax havens: the government is delivering all the right lines, but meanwhile, it keeps legalizing more and more tax havens. How about the fight against climate change? After parading around in Paris at COP21, the government is now making radical moves to extract even more dirty oil from the oil sands, which in no way helps address environmental issues.

Is that what we are seeing with Bill C-47 too?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I could not agree more.

This is just more smoke and mirrors, more grandstanding. They say Canada is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, but they are taking on only a tiny part and ignoring large chunks of it. Similarly, the government claims to be feminist, yet it sells arms to Saudi Arabia. The government claims to be concerned about climate change, yet it buys old pipelines with plans to expand them. We have a government that talks about tax fairness, yet it signs new deals that actually facilitate tax evasion and gives special privileges, like “get out of jail free” cards in Monopoly, to the biggest tax evaders.

I agree, this is so typical of this government. I find it interesting, because these are important issues that really matter to all the parties. We realize that, and we hear the same old tune. Once again, the government spews all kinds of lofty rhetoric, but without any real action, and what little action it does take flies in the face of what it says.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the people of Ontario for electing a new PC government yesterday. It was a great victory. I think they made the right choice by electing a government that can serve the people, first and foremost, and no one other than that.

I am pleased on this beautiful morning to talk about Bill C-47, a piece of legislation that does not achieve its stated purpose. I have spoken about the bill before. It is ineffective, unfair, and a step backward. I mean every word I say about the bill. The bill is a further example of the Liberals doing what they do best, chasing an optic while ignoring the tangible effects of their actions.

Canada has a robust and effective system of arms control that has served it well for decades and will continue to serve us for as long as we need. I called Bill C-47 a step backward, and I mean that quite literally. The system that we currently operate under meets or exceeds anything proposed by the UN treaty. It is a fact that our current protocol exceeds the requirements of the UN treaty contained in the bill before us.

I have the honour and pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. When we were studying the legislation, Amnesty International appeared as a witness to discuss the legislation. Their testimony was quite interesting. Indeed, we were able to gather very important things from the witnesses who appeared before committee. Amnesty International is a very trusted and well-respected organization on the world stage and in Canada. We wanted to get its opinion on the difference between the proposed legislation and the current regime we already have in Canada. Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International, told us on October 31, 2017, “in the critical aspects where we need strengthening, it is not a step forward.” If we are not making substantive progress, then why are we doing what we are doing?

We know that the United States, Russia, and other major countries making up the majority of the sales of military equipment have either not signed or likely will not ratify the treaty. As is the case with many ineffective international treaties, the key participants in the trade are not part of the treaty. We have a right to ask these questions before we adopt anything that comes our way, no matter where it comes from. The bill cannot be part of an effective international regime because we know that the Arms Trade Treaty is being ignored or boycotted by major players in the international arms trade. That is something we also have to pay attention to, because we are not the only player on the world stage, and we have to consider looking at those major players before we consider any law, or piece of legislation, or any treaty we have to agree to, because it means so much to Canada. We have to be very careful when considering what we are doing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes coming his way when we resume debating Bill C-47.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments), be read the third time and passed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning has 15 minutes remaining for his debate, and then we will go to questions after that.

The hon. member.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when speaking about Bill C-47, we must remind ourselves to mention the current regime we have in Canada regarding arms trade control. Since 1947, when Canada adopted such a control regime, the minister has had the ability to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons. These reasons include that they are security threats, are involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanction by the United Nations. We have the ultimate control over the arms trade in Canada, and it is something we have always been proud of and will continue to be.

Canada can utilize a blanket ban on trade with at-risk countries through the use of the area control list. A blanket ban means that we use all the methods we have and all the tools to put tight control on arms and military equipment that can harm innocent civilians. Under the area control list, we have the Export and Import Permits Act. Through the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on this list. At the current time, for example, North Korea is on that list.

Again, our current protocol is very strong, probably the strongest the world has ever seen. On top of that, we already heavily restrict many specific items that may be of concern, including military and missile items and chemical or biological goods, just to name a few. Furthermore, Canada already tracks and records more than what is required under the Arms Trade Treaty. Our arms control system, as I said earlier, is very tight and very strong to be able to deliver beyond any threat that may occur anywhere those arms go, including any country, regime, or army, around the world.

We also know that the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on exports from Canada of every single item that may be work-in-progress items or finished goods. We have those protocols in place, and as I said earlier, we are very proud of what we have been able to do.

Collectively, we are left with a process that amounts to little more than a virtue-signalling campaign by the government. It is unfortunate that politics gets into the issue. When we speak about our concerns and when we point out our views on this topic, the first thing that comes from the government is that this is fearmongering by the Conservatives, which, first of all, is not fair. It is not true that we are doing this. We are pointing out facts and logical positions we have taken for years. We have studied what we have and have made comparisons between what we are trying to adopt now and what we had before.

If this process is a total waste of time, then we must say so. We must protest and make sure that Canadians know about it so that at least they can understand what we are discussing here.

Speaking of Canadians, we know they want a strong arms control treaty, but guess what? They have one. It has been in existence since 1947. If we were to ask anyone out there, they would say that Canada has the best arms control regime or protocol in the world already, so why not adapt our existing one rather having to adopt another bill, another treaty, or other controls coming from another party, whether it is the United Nations or others? We represent the finest example of putting controls on such an important thing in the international community. Canadians need that clarification. Our job here in the House, as representatives of our constituents and every Canadian, is to clarify that and to make sure that Canadians know what the government is willing to sign onto in order supposedly to move us forward, and that it not take a backward step, as was said by some witnesses and in some of the consultations we had on our own.

This bill fails to address the potential adverse effects on law-abiding firearms owners. That area was discussed heavily at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. It is definitely an area the government has shied away from, even diminished, when it presented Bill C-47 in its current form.

Going back to Bill C-71, which is supposed to deal with those concerns, we know that when the Liberals introduced that bill, they confirmed that they were not concerned about the rights of hunters, farmers, and sports shooters. I recall at committee that we were trying to improve that area so that law-abiding Canadians would not fall victim to this whole process, but we were not able to achieve a result that would satisfy and take a fair stand when it comes to law-abiding Canadians, whether hunters, farmers, or sports shooters, who want to own firearms.

I have to mention that the former Conservative government requested that civilian firearms specifically be removed from the treaty in order to protect the interests of Canada's lawful firearms community. I recall Conservatives doing that. We did it in the House and at committee, and it fell on the deaf ears of the opposition at the time. It is unfortunate that we had to face that at the time. It is unfortunate that we have had to go through such difficulties. We are asking that it at least be fair. We are not asking for anything more than to be fair to hunters and farmers and, unfortunately, we have not obtained that.

The Liberals have decided to move forward with signing the ATT, with little or no consultation with lawful gun owners. They do not respect the legitimate trade in or use of hunting and sports firearms. Again, it bothers everyone out there, including us politicians, that despite the government's talk and advertising of consultation, saying that it is now the government that Canadians have been waiting forever for to consult with and ask questions of, we have been left with very little or no consultation.

The irony is that the government always says that it hears people and has consulted, as if it is the only entity doing politics, or working with, or representing, or listening to people. We do listen to people. We receive letters, complaints, and phone calls, and we know that the government is not listening enough. While this is not surprising, it is definitely a continuation of a disappointing pattern of disrespect and disregard by the government.

In short, this bill is unnecessary. The first time I spoke on this bill at second reading, I said it was ineffective, unnecessary, and for sure a step backward. It will never be a step forward. It will basically diminish what we have done for years. Our record shows that we are leaders with our current regime, that we are world leaders in legislating the Arms Trade Treaty. Here we are in 2018, and supposedly we are doing things to make improvements, but this is a step backwards and it is unnecessary and not fair. As I have said, it is unnecessary, unfair, and ineffective.

Upon its implementation, we would be worse off than we are today. For all of the reasons I and many of my Conservative colleagues have mentioned, this bill would not serve Canada, Canadians, and the world as the government is claiming. We will not support it.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to serve with the member on committee now for a year and to travel with him, and I can say that he is a very good guy. However, the speech was a bit shaky. Let me remind him, because I know he is a new MP like me, and give him a little history lesson. In April 2013, the United Nations had a vote to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty, and 154 countries voted for it, and three countries voted against it. The three countries that voted against the treaty were North Korea, Iran, and Syria. One hundred and fifty-four countries voted for the treaty.

If Canada, under the previous government decided that it was aspirational, that it was good, that it was great to be part of the world community and to sign and adopt that treaty, then my question is simple. Was the government hypocritical then or is it hypocritical now, was it disingenuous then or is it disingenuous now? Could he give me a time frame for when the government was disingenuous and hypocritical? Was it then or now?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the history lesson. I know he has a good memory and a lot of information, and my memory is very good too. I enjoy travelling and working with him on committee, and by all means I call him a friend.

On the question, it is correct that 154 countries signed the treaty, but how many countries ratified it and how many countries will be ratifying it? On the history lesson, he knows well that the world's major makers and exporters of arms are probably not interested. They have not shown any signs of ratifying this treaty. What is the point? It is the signature. What are the stakes? This is not hypocrisy. This is talking about where we are now and where we are going.

We are now sitting on and already have the best legislation in the world. We should be very proud of what we have before we go looking to adopt something that is not really going to assure ourselves or the international community of anything. On that topic, I will leave it on that note.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a new MP, as my Liberal colleague mentioned.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the oversight of arms exports and strengthening our laws. From my understanding, the member recognizes that our job, as MPs, is to scrutinize the government's activities, including Canadian arms sales.

Why then did the member's party and the government vote against an NDP motion that would have ensured parliamentary oversight of Canadian arms exports?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will probably have to go back and talk about our current regime.

I think it is a very important reminder. We know that. As I said, since 1947, when we came up with our legislation, the minister, regardless of which government and which minister it was, has had the ability to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including threat, internal or external conflict, and to those under sanctions by the United Nations and those subject to our blanket ban.

How much review is needed? Why does it always have to be done here? There are major arms exporters in the world. They are already there. They refuse to even ratify this Arms Trade Treaty, and we are here complaining about one of the best, if not the best, pieces of legislation the world has ever seen.

I do not understand where this is coming from. I do not understand why we should be wasting our time on something that is already in place and almost perfect.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his comments on this bill, because he clearly knows a lot about it.

As I was listening to my colleague outline some of the things that our current regime includes, such as the trade controls bureau, the fact that heavily restricted items, such as military and security equipment, are already under good scrutiny by Stats Canada and the CBSA, as well as many other safeguards that my colleague pointed out, it was clear that Canada already has a very effective regime when it comes to the control of military goods and security equipment.

This is beginning to sound a little like what I remember years ago when the Liberal government, I believe under the environment minister Stéphane Dion, signed on to the Kyoto accord. There was a big fanfare about our signing onto the Kyoto accord. However, we know that under that agreement, nothing was accomplished in terms of greenhouse gas reductions.

Is this just another photo op to make Canadians feel good, but when they really look at it, they will find that we have a better system in place now than we would under Bill C-47?