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 bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-47s:

C-47 (2023) Law Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1
C-47 (2014) Law Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014
C-47 (2012) Law Northern Jobs and Growth Act
C-47 (2010) Law Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act
C-47 (2009) Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act
C-47 (2008) Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

Votes

June 11, 2018 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of 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)
June 11, 2018 Failed 3rd reading and adoption of 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) (reasoned amendment)
June 4, 2018 Passed Concurrence at report stage of 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)
June 4, 2018 Failed 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) (report stage amendment)
June 4, 2018 Failed 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) (report stage amendment)
May 30, 2018 Passed Time allocation for 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)
Oct. 3, 2017 Passed 2nd reading of 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)

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.

The Speaker Geoff Regan

I would remind the hon. member for Foothills that when someone says “you” here, it generally means the person is talking to the Speaker, so I would ask him to direct his comments to the floor.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we were talking about exporting arms to other countries, so my questions will be related to that.

What is the use of legislation on arms export permits when more than half the arms sold by Canada are sold to the United States, a country that has not signed the Arms Trade Treaty and whose president has decided to relax the rules for arms exports? Does the member believe that this is in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the treaty?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think our main concern with this treaty is the additional bureaucracy and red tape that it would add to the system. One of the concerns that we have is the additional cost that it would put on our businesses.

There is also a safety concern, as my colleague was talking about, where we could have warehouses with a substantial backlog of firearms, which are either going to be exported to other countries or be imported from other countries and moved across Canada. This is a huge safety concern, because we do not have the infrastructure in the country to be stamping all of these firearms. We do not have the equipment, or very few businesses have the equipment, to do that. This is something that has been overlooked in a lot of the discussion on this bill. The safety implications of having a large storehouse or backlog of many firearms sitting in warehouses is that the people who are going to be accessing firearms illegally would certainly have an opportunity to get their hands on a large cache of firearms. They will know that the firearms will be there waiting to be stamped before they can be exported.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I took, with reason, the member's comments about rural communities being attacked, and this is another attack on rural communities. The message we have seen from the Liberal government to rural communities concerns me. The first concern is that only $2 billion of the $180 billion in infrastructure funding is going to rural areas. Then we have this attack on guns. We have a carbon tax that people in rural communities are going to suffer disproportionately from, because they have to drive long distances. In addition to that, we have an all out war on agriculture, and no action to address the logjam of grain cars. It just seems like another attack in a long line of attacks.

I wonder if my colleague is hearing similar comments at the door in his riding.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would break that up into two parts.

First, absolutely, I am hearing that from rural Canadians, not only in my constituency but also across the country, from people who are questioning this attack on rural Canada. Certainly, for me in the west, we always kind of heard “east versus west”, but the comments I am hearing now are “urban versus rural”. Everything the Liberal government is doing now is focused on urban issues, with no priority and, I would go so far as to say, neglect of rural issues.

Second, in rural Canada, when we are talking about the crisis from the increase in rural crime, the Liberals are talking about imposing a firearms registry and attacking law-abiding firearms owners. I hope they would see their misplaced priorities in that sense.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for being part of our rural task force dealing with rural crime. We have had many round tables, as the member mentioned.

While we were doing that, the Alberta government reacted. The NDP government reacted by putting more policemen on the road and putting more money towards combatting rural crime, yet, we have a Liberal government across the aisle that is doing just the opposite in reducing crime.

I wonder if he could speak briefly about where he sees the big difference between an NDP provincial government and the federal Liberal government.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Yellowhead, who took very active leadership in the rural crime task force, and for his work as a police officer for many years.

It was good to see the provincial government in Alberta set up the rural crime task force as well. Four teams across Alberta are moving to address hot spots in Alberta, and we are seeing them have a very strong impact. I wish the federal government would also start looking outside the box to find new and innovative ways to address rural crime.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:25 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have to start by saying what a delight it is tonight to hear the Conservative members from Alberta giving accolades to Premier Notley for taking strong action to protect rural Albertans. It certainly is an important issue, but it is absolutely not what we are here to debate tonight. I am pleased to say that I will be the first speaker tonight who will actually speak to Bill C-47. My colleagues and I are opposed to this bill, but for completely different reasons.

Why is this bill important and why is it important that we get it right? Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. In the past 25 years, Canada has sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with deeply questionable human rights records. In 2014-15, only 10 export permits were denied out of over 7,000 applications. Reports over the past year have indicated that Canadian sales of military-related equipment have increased to countries with poor human rights records.

It is time for the federal government to step up. I am pleased to say that the response to my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, has been the same as the response to me on this issue, in terms of the Liberals' attitude to the arms trade deal.

Over 30,000 people have signed an Avaaz petition since last Friday asking the Liberals to fix this bill. The petition reads:

As a concerned Canadian, I strongly urge you to pass an arms bill that will stop exports to any party involved in human rights violations, and to close the crazy loophole with US arms exports. It's unacceptable for Canadians to have zero visibility into where our weapons end up and we urge you to ensure that bill C-47 addresses that.

As I mentioned, in my almost 10 years in this place, the most responses I have ever received from my constituents have been those opposing the sale of the LAVs to Saudi Arabia. There we are: Canadians are not happy with the approach the government is taking.

Therefore, while we welcome the decision by the government to move forward and to become a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty, we are deeply troubled at the approach it is taking because, frankly, it is not living up to the treaty.

When the Liberal government announced that Canada would finally accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, my colleagues and I, particularly my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, were thrilled. Of course, my former colleague, Paul Dewar, was outspoken on this for all of the years he was in the House of Commons.

Sadly, instead, Bill C-47 is one more broken Liberal promise. They are not, in fact, taking the action necessary to actually implement in Canada, into Canadian law, the full Arms Trade Treaty. As many people have said, they make a mockery of the Arms Trade Treaty.

The first derogation from this treaty is a massive one, in that the bill does not cover any of our exports to the United States. We do not know the exact percentage, and I will tell my colleagues why in a minute, but well over 50% of our arms exports are to the United States. We do not know the actual percentage because those exports are not tracked, and not even reported. Thus, we have no idea how many of our arms are being sold to the United States. This is important because we exclude from this bill any arms that are manufactured by a Canadian manufacturer here in Canada, but sold by another nation. That is, in fact, what has been going on with Canadian manufacturers of arms for export. They simply sell them to an American entity or a similar entity they have incorporated in the United States, and those in turn sell them to foreign entities who are major human rights violators. This is all the more important now as President Trump is lowering the bar for export to countries that are serious human rights violators.

Members here will recall the proposed sale of helicopters to the Government of the Philippines. They will remember that the president of the Philippines had boasted about throwing a man from a helicopter and that he would do it again. However, there are reports the company in question now plans to send helicopter parts to the United States, assemble them there, and then send them to the Philippines. Clearly, that is a cannon hole we are shooting through this arms treaty. It violates the letter and spirit of the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty calls for universal adherence. That means that Canada should have laws in place that prohibit any sale by Canadian corporations to nations that are major human rights violators.

The second derogation is that in some cases in Canada an export permit is not even needed. Agreements between the defence department or with the Canadian Commercial Corporation do not require a permit, and they are free to sell to whoever they want. Those are also exempted from this bill.

What does Bill C-47 do to solve the problem? It does next to nothing, because Canadian corporations that are major arms manufacturers and traders have already figured out how to get around this, and the Liberal government is enabling that with this bill before us right now.

There was the infamous case of the light armoured vehicles, LAVs, sold by a Canadian manufacturer to Saudi Arabia. Despite clear reports of human rights violations, the current government refused to even investigate the sale. First, it suggested that the deal had already been completed by the Conservatives. Then it denied that there was any real evidence of the nefarious use of the LAVs by Saudi Arabia. Then, when the reports became so clear that there were in fact human rights violations going on with those very LAVS, it investigated, but again denied there was proof of human rights violations enabled by the use of Canadian LAVs.

There is also the embarrassing case of a UN report of a Canadian company selling 170 armed vehicles to support the brutal civil war in South Sudan. I just sat through a briefing by Global Affairs officials advising us of all the aid that Canada is giving to a number of African nations, including South Sudan, because of this brutal war. Human rights observers, including UN experts, have documented how South Sudan's army has engaged in massacres, rapes, looting, arbitrary arrests, and a scorched-earth strategy against civilians since the war erupted. Tens of thousands have died in the violence since then, making it one of the world's bloodiest conflicts. A UN expert panel said in a report submitted to the Security Council that the armoured vehicles sold to South Sudan were manufactured by the Canadian-owned Streit Group at a factory in the United Arab Emirates. The company simply takes the parts, has them put together in another nation, and then sells them to these human rights violators. It is absolutely absurd for Canada to be saying that we should be imposing sanctions on South Sudan and pouring in dollars to deal with the human rights abuses when in fact we are putting in place a law that would enable Canadian manufacturers to sell the very arms that are causing the atrocities in South Sudan.

In closing, we have heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who are absolutely opposed to the direction the government is taking. It is an international embarrassment. If the government wants to be on the Security Council, it should take back its bill, revise it, and make it consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, when this bill was studied at committee, we heard many different criticisms by different groups for different reasons. I think we can see a certain relationship between the criticisms, on the one hand, that this bill is targeting people it should not be targeting, namely law-abiding firearms owners, and on the other hand, its preservation of the fundamental structure of our existing system, one in which decisions about arms sales are ultimately discretionary.

When we had public servants before the committee, I asked specifically about a recent arms deal, the one with Azerbaijan, because I know it is of concern to many in the Canadian Armenian community because of the reality of an ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Artsakh region. There were border clashes recently, which most people agree were started on the Azeri side and that resulted in many people being killed. We posed those questions, and we were told at committee that this was a matter of commercial confidence, so we could not even get an explanation about that.

Although we might disagree on the particulars of some of these arms sales, surely we should be able to get answer to questions, especially when these questions are not about commercial particulars but about regional peace and stability in the region and how an arms sale might affect that? At the same time, does the member agree with us that this bill inappropriately targets responsible firearms owners in Canada by including things like small arms that could be used for sport and hunting.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot agree. The whole point of the treaty is to prohibit the sale and export of weapons to nations that are major human rights violators. It is to prohibit our nation, and all other nations that sign onto the treaty, from supporting atrocities. It does not matter if it is a rifle, a LAV tank, or a bomb, we should not be selling arms to nations where we know absolutely they will be used for war atrocities.

My colleague tried to table an amendment that would not allow for this exemption, where one could simply sell to a United States broker and in turn have it sold to a country that was committing atrocities.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was at committee today when the member asked the Department of Foreign Trade and Development about South Sudan. The officials seemed entirely unaware that this was occurring. I have heard the statistics that the member has shared about the number of times parts are shipped somewhere and then shipped somewhere else and assembled into weapons that go to countries that have human rights violations. She quoted statistics from 2014 about the lack of denial of any of these export certificates in Canada. Could she elaborate on the kind of amendments she would like to see to fix the bill?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:35 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have a question from the member. As I mentioned, my colleague has already submitted that amendment, which was turned down by the committee and by the minister who has brought forward this bill. It would not allow manufacturers of armaments to short circuit the Arms Trade Treaty by simply selling them or brokering them through another country. Whether the officials know this or not, they are not allowed to take policy positions. We know regularly when officials come before committee, they say they cannot express a policy, that we have to ask the politicians.

It is very clear on the evidence that we have been sitting by and allowing the sale of weapons manufactured by Canadian companies to nations committing serious war atrocities, and it needs to end.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to speak to Bill C-47. I want to note right up front that I am a bit disappointed that the government seems to have disengaged from the debate.

This is my first opportunity to consider this issue, and I am happy to stay here until midnight tonight. I was looking forward to the opportunity to ask questions and to hear the answers. It is important for Canadians as we debate this important issue.

The Liberals have a majority government and they will get the bill through, but to disengage, to not even participate in the debate is a bit disappointing.

Before I get into the specifics of Bill C-47, I want to draw attention to the connection among Bill C-71, Bill C-75, and Bill C-47. It speaks to the Liberals ideological perspective on things that are not driven in practicality.

Bill C-71 is the Liberal government's back door firearms registry. In spite of what the Liberals say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. They claim the bill will protect cities from guns and gangs. People who have only lived in big cities like Toronto, Montreal, or Ottawa, might not understand that a law-abiding hunter or farmer who lives in a rural area considers a firearm a tool. It is a tool for ranchers and hunters. It is a tool for indigenous people.

Bill C-47 would impact law-abiding hunters and farmers, as would Bill C-71, but not in a practical way, not in a way that would make a difference. It would not make a difference in guns and gangs in cities, especially Bill C-71. However, it would create an added level of bureaucracy for many of our rural communities and our hunters and farmers.

Bill C-75 is about Liberal ideology, not practicality. Some people commit pretty serious and significant crimes. Bill C-75 proposes to reduce sentences. Do the Liberals want to reduce sentences for terrorist activities, or for crimes such as administering a noxious substance or date rape? If something ever happened to my daughter, I would be absolutely appalled if the sentence was reduced.

There was a very disturbing court case in Kamloops involving the death of a young girl. The Twitter world was filled with people, saying justice was not done with respect to the sentence given to the person who murdered this child. Everyone had a sense that justice had not been done, yet Bill C-75 would further reduce criminal sentences for what would truly be horrific crimes.

I will get into the specifics of Bill C-47. This legislation was introduced in April, 2017. Let us talk about time management. It was introduced in April, 2017 and we are now going into June, 2018, with late night sittings so the Liberals can get what they believe to be important legislation through the House? That significantly indicates bad management of House time.

Bill C-47 would control the transfer of eight different categories of military equipment. The one we find to be the most troubling is category 8, small arms and light weapons. I understand an amendment was introduced at committee that would add “The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.”

It was quite a reasonable amendment, but it was voted down. I wanted to ask the government tonight why it voted it down because it would have given many of us greater comfort in how we looked at the bill.

The government tends to look at anything the UN does without criticism. If the UN says we should do this, the Liberals tend to say, absolutely, how fast, and how quickly. They do not spend as much time as they might reflecting on what we do in Canada.

I would beg to differ from my colleague from the NDP. We do have a responsive system. We have a Trades Control Bureau. To a greater degree, this system has worked pretty well. Would it be better to have something that everyone uses? Absolutely, if everyone used it. We only need to look at the list of the countries that have not or will not signed onto this agreement. We have to recognize that this agreement will not accomplish what it is intended to accomplish.

I encourage anyone who might have an interest in this issue to go online and look at the list of countries that have signed on to the treaty and implemented it. However, look to the larger category of countries that have said no. People will quickly recognize that we are not creating a solution in Canada. We are going to be creating increased challenges.

Another area that the Liberals should be reflecting on is this. The Department of National Defence has always been excluded from our internal systems. Under this treaty, it will be included. Is that going to affect the nimbleness of our military, its ability to respond in a rapid response? Perhaps the Liberals have not done as much due diligence in that area. We need to ensure our military can react rapidly to trouble spots around the world and send assistance. We often thought that sending assistance was the correct response. This does nothing for law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday in the House, the Liberals voted for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Over a year ago, at the UN, they committed to its implementation. With respect to Bill C-71, today at committee one of the first nations leadership said “We had no consultations.” This is another example of the Liberals telling them what they are going to do. I would suggest that the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne would say that with the borders between the U.S. and Canada, the bill would impact the people, that the council did not even know about it. The fact is that over a year and a half ago, the Liberals committed to consultations under article 19, but they have not followed through in any meaningful way to that commitment.

I am disappointed that we have not had engagement, but, quite frankly, the treaty goals in the bill will not be met. Meanwhile we will create some new regulatory burdens for our Department of National Defence and people in the fishing and hunting community who will keep having to do more and more under a Liberal government. I am sure they must be terribly frustrated. This is one more example of its lack of understanding on that issue.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really affect my riding is rural crime. I know the member talked fairly extensively about that.

When I get back home and people ask me why the government is doing this or that, I always say that the government does not see past the city limits.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague has had the same experience back home.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have had the benefit of growing up in an urban area, understanding the urban perspective, and then spending many years of my life living in a more rural community.

I often talk about my neighbour shooting a cougar that was stalking the children. It was a tool of living in a rural community. If people do not have the opportunities to live and experience both the urban and the rural lifestyles, or, even worse, if they are not willing to engage in debate about this issue, they do not understand what is happening.