This bill is from the 42nd Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2019.
Chrystia Freeland Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
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.
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:
Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleagues are already excited. Just think how excited they will be after I ask the question. However, I am glad that, perhaps unusually for the Liberal side, I finally have a bit of an audience, not to imply, of course, that they were not here.
I want to ask my colleague for her view on the amendment the Conservatives proposed at committee. Members should know that Conservatives were very constructive as part of this legislative process. We introduced an amendment. My colleague from P.E.I is laughing. However, he should stay and hear this amendment, because I know there are many firearms owners in his riding, who I look forward to visiting with soon, who are concerned about this bill.
The Conservatives proposed an amendment at committee that said, “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.”
This was an amendment that was asked for by stakeholders. It would have preserved the rest of the bill, the architecture of the bill, but it also would have provided clear protection. Let us be clear. There is a difference between, generally speaking, the kind of firearms that are used for recreational purposes, for duck hunting, and the ones that are used in military grade atrocities and that sort of thing.
Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I just want to allow for another question. I would ask individuals when they are asking their questions to keep their remarks to a minimum.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, definitely I think that amendment would have been in line with what I said, which is that we do not have a problem today in Canada with lawful gun owners. Therefore, exempting them from this would have been the right thing to do. That said, the government has a propensity to not accept amendments. I know I have been frustrated at the health committee when I have brought multiple amendments that are well thought out, and the government has totally ignored them.
Furthermore, when things go from this House over to the other place, amendments are brought back, typically ones that are exactly the same as we brought at committee here, and they are refused again, which seems a huge waste of taxpayer money. I am not opposed at all to that amendment.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I am going to ask her a very simple question. With respect to Bill C-47, what does she think of the fact that Canada sold arms to Saudi Arabia and that those arms may have been used against civilians? Does she think that is a good thing or a bad thing?
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, when we start out and take on a contract, we have intentions and do not think they will be used incorrectly. However, when we find information to the contrary, then we have to reevaluate our decisions. I think it is clear that we want to make sure that Canada is not contributing to violence against women and girls, that we are not contributing to violence in the world, and that we are not contributing to conflict in the world.
I hinted in my speech about how we need to get better traceability on where weapons are going, and what is happening with them. When information presents itself, I think we need to take action.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I agree with some of the things my Conservative colleague just said, but I disagree with others. One of the things we have in common is that neither of us understands why the Liberal members here are so scared.
It is your bill. Why are you not talking? Why are you refusing to debate your own bill? Are you trying to hide? Are you ashamed? Is it that you are not proud of it? Why do you not want to talk? Is it that you do not like confrontation, because it makes you uncomfortable?
You are making us sit until midnight every night because you are behind—
Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Order. Order. I must remind the member to address the Chair, not individuals or the government. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has fallen behind on its legislative agenda. It is forcing parliamentarians to stay late into the night to study its bills because it is incapable of moving its legislative agenda forward. Now it is asking us to debate an important bill that speaks to significant Canadian and, dare I say it, Liberal values, like freedom and respect. However, the Liberals refuse to talk about it. It is utterly baffling. It would be all the more baffling if we were talking about another bill to legalize a certain substance, but that is not the topic of tonight's debate.
It is somewhat surreal that only the official opposition, the second opposition party, and the others are interested in debating this major bill governing Canada's arms exports to other countries. I will come back to this, because it speaks to fundamental values we hold. There is a general tendency to puff up with pride when this subject comes up, but when the time comes to choose between profits and respecting certain rights, the Liberal government shows its true colours. Again, this bill is not reflective of the standards, values, and principles that we have embraced as a society and that the government claims to care about here and around the world.
Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work and absolutely amazing job being done by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie on this file, specifically at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I also want to applaud her assistant, Jennifer Pedersen, who has been doing fantastic work on this file for years now.
This evening we are debating Bill C-47, introduced by the federal government, which should be capable of applying the principles of such an important treaty as the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. The Arms Trade Treaty is pretty simple. The general principle states that we should not sell arms to a country if we have any reason to suspect, based on overwhelming evidence, that it might use those weapons against civilian populations, either its own or in neighbouring countries.
Unfortunately, we seriously doubt that the Liberal government's Bill C-47 will manage to address this very basic concern. We must prohibit the sale of weapons to countries that violate human rights. This leads us to reflect on some philosophical and political questions. Who are we as a society? What role do we want to play in the world? What is our own identity? If we are proud to be a country that respects human rights here and abroad, we cannot have a double standard. Human rights are not optional. We cannot be satisfied with respecting them only when it suits us, only to make an exception when other interests prevail.
Respecting human rights means always. As progressives, New Democrats, and humanists, we want to make sure those rights are respected. That is part of our values as Quebeckers and Canadians. We cannot say one thing and then do the opposite. Unfortunately, Bill C-47 provides absolutely no guarantee that our identity and the image we want to project to the world will be respected.
Let us remember that, once the Liberals took office, they signed an export permit for the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. We now know that those weapons were used against civilian populations in Saudi Arabia and likely against civilian populations in Yemen, a neighbouring country torn by a very intense civil war. However, the Liberals tried to mislead us. The Prime Minister told us that there was no problem and that Canada had only sold Saudi Arabia Jeeps, or vehicles that were practically buses.
It turns out that the Jeeps in question were armoured vehicles, some light and some heavy. Normally, a government that respected the principles of the Arms Trade Treaty would not have signed the export permit.
I understand that a contract had been signed previously, but the government still could have exercised due diligence, respected our international commitments, and refused to issue the permit because there was too great a risk that those weapons would be used against the civilian population. Instead, the Liberal government decided to thumb its nose at all of those values and sign the export contract for the weapons.
After that, I do not understand how the Liberals can show their faces on the international stage and say that they are champions of human rights and that they want to win back Canada's seat on the United Nations Security Council, when they are not even capable of abiding by that treaty. The government introduced a bill to say that it will abide by the treaty, but there is no guarantee that it will do so.
In fact, there is a giant gaping loophole the size of the Grand Canyon in this bill.
Before moving on to that topic, I want to mention that the Liberal government's current bill includes absolutely nothing for re-evaluating existing export permits. Even if we were determined to act in good faith and there was no information or event to suggest that these arms could be used against civilians, there still should be an export permit re-evaluation mechanism.
However, Bill C-47 includes no measure for re-evaluating permits, even if there are credible allegations of human rights violations. That means that we are rushing to sell arms before getting all the information, and once the other country violates human rights and attacks civilians, we wash our hands of the whole thing, because there is no export permit re-evaluation process. It is quite incredible.
The huge loophole I was talking about a minute ago is that all exports of military goods to the United States are exempt. Under Bill C-47, exports of military materiel, arms, equipment, or partial equipment to the United States do not fall under the ax of the Liberal government's Bill C-47.
That means that we could sell arms to the United States, which could then sell them to a dictatorship that might attack civilians. There is nothing we could do about that under this bill.
We could sell a piece of equipment, a rifle part or a cannon part, to the United States, which could then sell them to people or governments that violate human rights and that would not fall on the chopping block of Bill C-47. Such sales represent half of our exports.
The Liberals have managed to circumvent the Arms Trade Treaty. If this bill had teeth, half of our exports could not be evaluated by this bill. It is unfathomable.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, we have been having a great back and forth this evening between the NDP and the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member has any inclination as to what the Liberals thoughts are on this tonight.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I am an objective observer, but they obviously must not be too proud of their bill, since they are all staring at their computers, iPads, or notes. They refuse to listen to the opposition's comments, even though the bill is like Gruyère cheese with no teeth. The bill does not comply with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, since it exempts all of our arms exports to the United States.
One more thing: the bill has no influence or power over the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC. This is the crown corporation that sold helicopters to the Duterte government in the Philippines, but the Liberal bill would not allow us to do anything about CCC.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. During question period this week, we heard even more of his expressions. I had the privilege of participating in an environment committee hearing today, and he had a good run.
Did my colleague expect better from the Liberal government? Did he expect the Liberals to step up and keep their election promises? His speech seemed to raise a big question mark, but I am wondering if he expected better.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely pertinent question. I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that a few years ago, there was an excellent game show on Quebec television called Fais-moi un dessin, or draw me a picture. People could draw one picture, two pictures, three pictures—all kinds of pictures.
I have a sad feeling that we have a government with no clear direction, except that it tends to do the opposite of what it said in the election campaign. I could recite a list, and it is quite fascinating. It includes combatting tax havens, creating a strong environmental assessment process, closing tax loopholes for CEOs, reforming the electoral system, and now, combatting climate change.
Yes, I do agree with my colleague. The Liberals are doing the opposite of what they told us they would do two and a half years ago.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I wonder if this debate is a harbinger of where we are going to be after 2019, with mostly Conservatives and New Democrats giving speeches. We are hearing as much from the Liberals in the House today as we did from Rachel Notley in the last election about the carbon tax, just to make sure this is not a totally Conservative-NDP love-in.
I want to ask the NDP about the amendment that Conservatives proposed in committee. It would have ensured that the brokering control list did not include small arms such as rifles, carbines, revolvers, or pistols intended for hunting or sport.
We agree with the NDP in principle that Canada should not be selling arms that go on to be used in atrocities or violations of human rights. However, very clearly ensuring that the brokering control list does not include certain kinds of weapons that are very much intended for hunting and recreation does not raise problems in terms of human rights.
Would the NDP agree with us that this is a good amendment and that providing protection for those kinds of tools does not raise any kind of attendant human rights concern?
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, it is amusing to see Liberal members on the other side who have been muzzled and seem a bit restless. They seem to want to participate in the discussion, but unfortunately, they are not allowed to talk.
Indeed, this bill must address the wholesale trade of arms to governments that will give them to their armies to use. I agree with my colleague that we must protect the rights of our hunters and fishers, but that is not exactly the purpose and nature of this bill. I agree that people who use weapons for recreational activities or hunting should be protected. This is true.