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.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Export and Import Permits Act

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are three minutes of questions and comments remaining following the speech of the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been baffled by the responses from the other parties. From the Liberals, we hear that Bill C-47 is fine in meeting the challenges of the arms control treaty and its ratification. From the Conservatives, we hear that it goes too far, and will apply to domestic gun sales. It is certainly the case that on reading the bill, it does not have any domestic application to selling guns within Canada.

I know the member mentioned this in his speech. We have a huge loophole here, one pointed out by Project Ploughshares, Oxfam, and other groups that have been working hard to get the arms control treaty brought in. The treaty allows weapons to be sold in the United States, which is not planning to become a party to this treaty, and there will be no record keeping for that.

Would my hon. colleague agree that we need amendments at committee, so the bill can meet the challenge of the arms control treaty?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this is one of the big concerns of the NDP, if not the biggest. As she mentioned, there are groups out there who have said this is a loophole we could drive a tank through. We do not want to see Canada stepping back from its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty by exempting exports to the United States from the Export and Import Permits Act.

We want to see those transactions covered by this bill as well. Frankly, because the United States is not a signatory to this treaty, or at least has not ratified it, it could then pass on equipment it makes, with Canadian products and components, to countries we may not approve and may not be covered under the treaty. Therefore, we would like this loophole closed securely in an amendment at committee.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that this issue and our economic relationship with our trading partner the United States are of such importance that they call for pragmatism, openness, and collaboration in committee? Surely they deserve that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important situation. Half of our military exports go to the United States. This is a huge part of our exports. The United States is obviously a big trading partner. This would not endanger that at all. It would just be the tracking mechanisms, so that Canada could live up to its obligations under the treaty.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Peace, on which we are asked to commit to peace above all differences and to contribute to building a culture of peace here in our community, our country, and around the world.

Human rights are not optional. If the government wants to show Canada that it is a leader in human rights, then it needs to ensure that it, and we, are walking the talk.

I was very moved at a ceremony in my community in Nanaimo on August 6, which is the anniversary of the tragic and terrible bombing of Hiroshima, where members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom were talking about the United Nations treaty to ban nuclear weapons. At this ceremony last year they shared my hope that the Prime Minister was going to walk his talk and sign the treaty, given his campaign commitments about peace, security, and restoring Canada's good reputation on the world stage.

However, this year peace activists—and I think particularly of my mentor, Dyane Brown—were condemning the Prime Minister because he had directed Canada to vote against negotiations to end the nuclear weapons trade. Therefore, Canada voted against those negotiations and is not a signatory to that treaty. It was shameful. The United Nations Secretary-General called for nuclear negotiations, and 68 countries voted in favour. This was a bit more than a year ago, and Canada was on the outside of that international consensus.

The vote was called “the most significant contribution to nuclear disarmament in two decades” by one of the United Nations member countries. It is a shameful position for our country to be in. With the Liberal government's vote, Canada has effectively removed itself from nuclear disarmament democracy and diplomacy. We do not understand how Canada can be back, in the government's words, “on the international stage” when the Prime Minister is turning his back on the most important international negotiations in years. The threat of nuclear war is so present on the international stage right now that it is even more important that the international community work together at this time.

New Democratic members of Parliament and the representative for the Green Party stood on the steps of Parliament yesterday with activists in the area. We ourselves signed that treaty in a sign of solidarity, even though our Prime Minister and the Government of Canada will not.

There is much more United Nations consensus in which our country can join. A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact of armed conflict on women, children, refugees, internally displaced persons, persons with disabilities, and older persons. As the New Democrat spokesperson on the status of women, I am going to bring a gender lens in particular to this debate.

The UN and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer sexual violence, rape, and lack of access to life-saving health care. Amnesty International says women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict. Women bear the brunt of war and are the vast majority of casualties resulting from war. Rape and sexual violence target women and girls and are routinely used not only to terrorize women but as a strategic tool of war and an instrument of genocide. Systematic rape is often used as a weapon of war in ethnic cleansing and, in addition to rape, girls and women are often subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.

Is it not time that we look more closely at the regimes to which Canada exports weapons? In all countries everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the very fabric of a community in the way that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and government. About 603,000,000 women live in countries where domestic violence is not considered a crime. Are we exporting weapons there?

In many countries there is repression, silencing of abuse, and mistreatment and imprisonment of women, human rights defenders, and activists. Are we exporting weapons there? In some countries, women are considered perpetual legal minors, permanently under the guardianship of a male relative. Are we exporting there?

In some countries, it is actually legal for a man to rape his wife. Are we exporting arms to those countries?

We hear again and again that Canadians want to have more scrutiny over the destination of Canadian weapons, and they want to know that we are not exacerbating those human rights abuses in countries abroad.

At last year's New Democrat convention, Stephen Lewis powerfully said:

We're not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a 'persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens.' Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word 'violations.' And the government of Canada refuses to release its so-called assessment of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. So much for the newly minted policy of transparency.

He then called out the Prime Minister, who “unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist” but is selling weapons to a regime "steeped in misogyny.”

Is it not time that we looked more closely at the regimes to which we export weapons? Many Canadians would be shocked to know that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years.

While Canada used to export primarily to NATO countries, under the Conservative government these shifted to regimes with particularly troubling human rights records. Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East after the U.S. Saudi Arabia is now the world's second-largest buyer of Canadian-made military equipment.

There are increasing allegations that Canadian weapons are being used to commit human rights violations in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan.

Last year, the NDP wanted to create a committee in this House that would have provided parliamentary oversight of arms exports. We would have had multi-party co-operation investigating current and future arms exports. However, the Liberal government voted against it.

All last year we called for Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. Finally, with this legislation, Canada is, but Bill C-47 does not strengthen export controls, and we have no idea whether future arms deals with human rights-abusing countries would be prohibited. The Arms Trade Treaty was meant to prevent these kinds of deals, but the government's legislation seems to go against the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Nor does it consider violence against women and children. The Arms Trade Treaty requires the exporting country to take into account the risk of arms or munitions “being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.” The Arms Trade Treaty is the first international convention to recognize and address the link between conventional arms transfers and gender-based violence. That is a good thing. Such criteria should be incorporated into Canada's export controls, but this bill fails to address that need.

We have a government that says it is deeply committed to equal rights for women, and committed to transparency, do let us move forward. Let us do the right thing collectively. Let us amend this bill to make it fair, transparent, full of human rights for women, and consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty. Let us make Canada proud again on the world stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. She made reference Saudi Arabia. We know that the NDP are hard to pin down in terms of what its actual position is.

Who do we believe? Do we believe some of the NDP members of Parliament who are sitting in this chamber right now? Do we believe someone like the leader of the New Democratic Party, who during the election campaign made a commitment to anyone who was in earshot at a factory in London when he was talking about how the NDP would honour the agreement with Saudi Arabia.

My question for the member across the way is this: was the leader of the New Democratic Party wrong to have made that particular commitment to the workers and others, when he made the statement that the NDP would honour the agreement with Saudi Arabia? Was the leader of the New Democratic Party wrong at that time? Are some of the members maybe a little misplaced in their thinking on the issue of that contract with Saudi Arabia?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we have probably answered that question in this House more times than I can count.

The signing of the contract at the time and the uses of the armoured vehicles were one question. The contract was established under the terms of the old Conservative government. By the time the Liberal government, in its new power, was asked to sign, in its own name, the export agreement to honour those vehicles being moved, it was very clear that there were guns mounted to the front of those armoured vehicles. At that point, the product being exported was a very different product.

This government was fully aware of that. It is this government's signature that is on this export agreement. This is the one that is being called to account by human rights activists in this country and around the world.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Arms Trade Treaty is one that Canada should have stepped up to under the previous government. Unfortunately, we have seen that the way the legislation has been drafted leaves large loopholes that need fixing.

In answer to the question from the parliamentary secretary, it is hard to square the comments of her outgoing leader with an objection to selling tanks to Saudi Arabia, but we move forward and learn from those experiences.

Would the hon. member agree with the statement that came through from Amnesty International, Project Ploughshares, and Oxfam Canada that the loopholes allowing weapons to be sold through the U.S. with no record-keeping create a loophole so large we can drive a tank through it?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, after two years of promises, we finally have a government that is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. That is a good thing. I am not going to vote against that. I very much want to move it to committee. As the member cites, we are absolutely in solidarity with the changes that our activist friends Project Ploughshares want to see, so I will be voting to send this to committee.

In addition to the loophole around violence against women I cited in my speech, one of the loopholes we note is that the Arms Trade Treaty asks us to look at what our exports would be to the United States. Right now, this version of the bill does not allow for any licensing or scrutiny of whether these arms would be used in a way that reveals or exacerbates human rights problems. That is one of the three big loopholes we will be trying to close at committee. We hope that the government will listen to reason this time around.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud today to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-47, which would make the legislative changes necessary so Canada could finally accede to the international Arms Trade Treaty. This issue has concerned me for many years.

Six years ago, I led a training program for women running for parliament in the Democratic Republic of Congo. So many of the women, when speaking of their motivation to run for office, spoke of having been sexually violated at gunpoint and wanting to build a country where their sons and daughters did not have to live in fear of violence. When I asked the women in that room how many of them had been raped, over 80% of them put up their hand. I will never forget what one of the women said to me. She said, “Congo doesn't manufacture weapons. Every gun that was used against us was brought here by somebody. If you can stop the guns, you can stop the rape.”

Two years later, the international community came together in 2013 to sign the Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the illicit trade in small arms and conventional weapons, and it was agreed upon. It came into force in 2014.

The Arms Trade Treaty includes specific provisions on the use of conventional weapons to commit serious acts of violence against women and girls, including rape. I assumed that Canada would be one of the first countries to lead the world in signing this incredibly important treaty, but I was wrong. Now, 130 countries have signed the Arms Trade Treaty and I am very proud that once this legislation passes, Canada will finally be among them.

According to Oxfam, 2,000 people a day are killed by small arms around the world. In fact, the amount of money the continent of Africa lost as a result of armed conflict between 1990 and 2006 was almost the exact same as the amount of official development assistance it received. Not only does regulating the illicit trade in weapons stop arms from getting into the hands of dictators, of criminals, of terrorists, of mercenaries, and of non-state militia groups that commit horrific human rights abuses, but it will also ensure that the poorest and most fragile states will be able to commit that money to the sustainable development goals.

Signing the Arms Trade Treaty is not just good for people in other countries, it also will benefit Canada significantly.

The first benefit that I would like to highlight are the international relations benefits to Canada of acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty. It will put us back in line with our allies. At this point, Canada is the only NATO or G7 country not to have signed or ratified the treaty. Canada has long been at the forefront of promoting export controls as a way of reducing the types of risks that are addressed in the Arms Trade Treaty. Indeed, we are founding members of the four export control regimes, multilateral initiatives created in response to concern about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; missiles and related dual use goods and technologies; or, in the case of the Wassenaar arrangement, in order to regulate the export of conventional weapons. Remaining outside the ATT is not in Canada's international interest.

We have long recognized that Canada benefits from a strong, rules-based international system. In that regard, the Arms Trade Treaty sets clear rules for international trade in conventional arms, rules that take into account important issues for Canada, such as preventing violations and abuses of human rights or international humanitarian law. It is in Canada's interest that as many states as possible join and implement the ATT, to ensure that all states adopt the type of strong export controls that we already have in place.

Accession to the ATT will allow Canada to be more effective and to work multilaterally in its quest for a more transparent and accountable arms trade.

Accession to the Arms Trade Treaty also offers Canada important national and international security benefits. Canada's security and that of its allies is put at risk when terrorists have easy access to weapons. The ATT requires that all state parties assess the risk that exports could contribute to terrorism and not export these goods if that risk is overriding.

The ATT requires the same considerations for transnational crime, which benefits from selling weapons to the highest bidder regardless of how they intend to use such weapons. The ATT also requires that its state parties prevent diversion of their exports and of their own stockpiles of weapons.

More broadly, the illicit proliferation of conventional weapons promotes and sustains conflict, conflict that leads to regional and even global instability; conflict that forces people from their homes; conflict that generates poverty and inequality and prevents sustainable development.

Canada benefits from a stable, prosperous world. The conflict created when weapons flow easily into fragile states creates instability for us and for all our international partners. Accession to the ATT will allow Canada to work with the international community to stem such weapon flows.

We recently contributed one million dollars to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation with the goal of assisting states that want to accede to the ATT or improve their implementation of the treaty. Many states have not implemented the strong set of checks and balances that are necessary.

Canadian and international security can only benefit from more states that carefully consider the potential impacts and diversion risks of conventional arms exports before authorizing such sales.

There is considerable domestic benefit to Canadian accession and implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty. Canadian accession to the ATT will promote responsible and transparent arms trade globally. As I have already noted, Canada has a strong and rigorous export control system, but that does not mean it cannot be further improved.

The bill before the House will allow Canada to fully implement the ATT. By doing so, we will be strengthening our current system of export control. Although the government wishes to see Canada accede to the treaty as soon as possible, we will accede as a responsible member, by being able to comply with all the obligations of the treaty.

The bill before the House is intended to ensure that Canada explicitly complies with the obligation to assess exports of conventional arms according to the criteria set out in the Arms Trade Treaty. These include the need to assess the effect on international peace and security, the risk of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the risk of facilitating terrorism or transnational organized crime, and the risk of gender-based violence or violence against women and children. Our government intends to ensure that these considerations will be enshrined as required obligations for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, and that the criteria set out in the ATT will be explicitly listed as factors that must be considered in each export licence assessment.

The bill before us would also ensure that Canada can comply with ATT obligations on brokering. It proposes to impose the same standards we expect from Canadian individuals and companies that export conventional weapons to those who seek, legitimately, to broker such weapons. Brokering controls will strengthen Canada's export control system by tracking the movement of controlled items outside of Canada and supporting global co-operation in the international trade of conventional arms.

Our government proposes to apply these provisions not only to conventional arms, as the ATT requires, but also to items of strategic importance. We propose to ensure that brokering operations are assessed according to the same factors used to obtain export licences.

This will ensure that arms transfers organized by Canada comply with Canadian legislation and policies.

I began by talking about the courageous women I met in the Congo and around the world. They are fighting for a world where their daughters and sons can live free from fear and violence. Through Bill C-47, I can stand in this place and let the women I met in the Congo, Liberia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and in so many other places know that our country will do its part.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I honour the member's work with the United Nations and around the world. She has a particular voice that is brought to this issue. I thank her for the storytelling she included in her speech.

The question I have is about the commitment of Bill C-47 to examining the human rights violations of women and children in particular. I am very interested in her perspective on this, because I know this is an important part of her background.

It is my understanding that the Arms Trade Treaty requires the exporting country to take into account the risk of arms or munitions being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children. Although this is in the Arms Trade Treaty, it is not translated into Bill C-47.

Could the member speak to that? If she agrees that it is a missing piece, will she argue for amendments in committee to close that loophole?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work the member also does for women and girls in Canada and around the world.

Specifically on this question, I think where the confusion might lie is that this is a factor that will be done through regulations. I can reassure my colleague that the regulations will include every single one of the article 7 obligations. That means the legislation will include the very provisions in the Arms Trade Treaty which talk about protection of women and girls from violence.

An important thing to note is that by doing this through regulation, we are making it more flexible. In fact, this is the very kind of thing that would allow us, in the future, to expand and include other forms of gender-based violence in these regulations rather than have to go through a legislative framework.

If anything, this actually empowers, even more, the ability for Canada not only to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and to all the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty, but also to be a leader in the world and show an example in the world.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean proudly represents a number of people who work with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

She might find it strange that article 5 of this treaty actually prevents DND from potentially doing government-to-government transfers of assistance of a military nature, like we are doing with the peshmerga and our fight against ISIS. Canada's safe and effective regulatory regime for export of military equipment and such has never required such a drastic step as is in article 5 of this treaty.

Since the member also proudly represents a number of civil servants, I wonder if she would comment on why our current system is broken, the one we have had since the 1940s that leads the world, the one that has the Trade Controls Bureau, and the fact that the Export and Import Permits Act permits the government to have an area of control list banning countries entirely from getting anything from Canada?

A number of measures have effectively been regulated on a Canadian basis since the Second World War. We did not need the United Nations to tell us how to do this. In fact, our regime is superior to a number of the elements in here.

As an Ottawa and area member, could the member tell us what parts of the current regime, which Canada has been using successfully, have been failing and are in need of Bill C-47?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud that I represent the riding that will have the large DND campus. I am also proud that a number of public servants and a number of employees of the Department of National Defence are my constituents. That is exactly why this is extremely important. This is going to make Canada once again a leader in the world.

With regard to article 5, I would remind my hon. colleague that our current arms controls meet or exceed all 28 articles in the Arms Trade Treaty, except for articles 10 and 7, and those are to do with the brokering controls and formalizing the accountability process and the transparency of the criteria for export permits. All of our controls already exist with regard to article 5.

In the same breath the hon. member talked about the fact that the current system is working. I would venture first of all to say that a lot of the things in the current system, like the Wassenaar Arrangement, are not all-encompassing of the 130 countries but also are not legally binding. The Arms Trade Treaty is legally binding, and that is extremely important. It would allow Canada not just to be able to reinforce what we are doing, but also including the $1 million that we have put to the international community will help other countries to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and to take that leadership in the world that our public servants and members of DND and our armed forces are proud of.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke eloquently about her international experience and her conversations with women and the use of arms against women in other countries.

I am wondering if they had heard that our country had not signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty and what she thinks it would mean for our international relations to find out that we are now finally going to sign on to this treaty.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It is close to my heart, Madam Speaker. When I was working with women in countries around the world, they would ask me what is happening to Canada and where Canada is. In many cases, they told me not only was Canada absent but Canada was actually blocking progress on some of the things they needed in order to promote and empower women around the world and empower the world's poorest. I heard this over and over again.

When I was working with the UN in New York, I heard many times from counterparts that Canada was being asked not to show up for international negotiations because we were seen as obstructionists. That was very embarrassing to me. I sat in a room with women who told me they were running for parliament in their countries, trying to do their part. They asked me why I was not running for office so I could do my part and change things in Canada. That was primarily what really motivated me to run for this place, and I am so proud today. This is one of my proudest days, because I am able to rise in this place and tell those women that Canada is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my friend for bringing up the reality of what happens to women in conflict zones around the world and the importance of stopping the flow of weapons. A lot of Canadians would be shocked by the information she has brought forward.

I am certainly aware of the fact that, over the last number of years, Canada has become much more part of the global arms trade than we have ever been in the past. We need to stem the flow of armaments to many countries around the world. We need to step up and sign the nuclear disarmament treaty. There are many things that Canada needs to do to reclaim its place in the world at the time when Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the things for which Canadians feel very proud.

Would my hon. colleague agree that when the bill gets to committee, we need to fix the loophole that allows armaments to be sent into the United States with no records being kept? The United States is a non-party state. They could go to many countries around the world that would not meet Canadian standards.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud that, as of today, I am on the foreign affairs committee. Members on this committee work well together in being able to find solutions to problems as a country, and not by looking at problems through a partisan lens. I am looking forward to seeing this bill before committee, hearing from witnesses, and looking at what could be improved.

Many of the things within the Arms Trade Treaty are already being done by Canada. We need to make sure there is more transparency. It requires reporting to the House. It requires that we have control over brokering. There are a lot of things that we need to do in order to be able to accede to the treaty. I am pleased that I will have the opportunity to participate in that discussion in committee.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-47, a bill that would create the legislative provisions to permit Canada to sign on to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I want to begin by expressing that I have always been supportive of legislative measures and other efforts to establish international standards for arms transfers that seek to prevent illicit transfers of weapons around the world. I have no opposition to that aspect of the treaty; it is important that we halt the flow of arms to dangerous regimes and terrorist cells.

However, I will focus my comments today on an area of concern that I feel, under the government, is not being duly considered as a side effect of signing on to that Arms Trade Treaty. That is how this legislation, in signing the Arms Trade Treaty, would impact law-abiding gun owners such as hunters, firearms, and sports shooters like me.

I believe that any treaty such as this must contain explicit exemptions for civilian firearms or, at the very least, eliminate vague language and language that could suggest that firearms owned by civilians for recreational use could become subject to measures in the treaty. The treaty should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use.

As it is currently written, the treaty does not meet these conditions, and concerns from Canadian firearms owners have fallen on deaf ears from the government. A good example of that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying the concerns of hunters and sports shooters are “bogus”. He is telling me that my concerns are bogus and obviously that points out how out of touch he is. I have to shake my head about a comment like that. Obviously he is not representing all the people in his riding, because every riding in this country has people who like to sport shoot.

I support some of the things that the UN does, but I also have some grave concerns. The international news in the last couple of days reports comments from British Prime Minister May, who basically is telling the UN to reform, clean up its act, or funds will be cut to it. There are other things that raise concerns for me and a lot of other Canadians.

While in government, the Conservative Party took time to analyze this treaty and its impacts on the firearms community in Canada. The government is seemingly looking at this issue as a one and done type of deal. Sign on, pass the legislation the UN deems must be passed, and call it a day. It is not quite that simple, and concerns have been raised about the implications of this treaty, as I alluded.

I was honoured to serve alongside the Hon. John Baird, former minister of foreign affairs, and it was during his tenure that this treaty was at the forefront of public debate. Minister Baird took his time in making a decision, as he knew how complicated this matter was. He noted that the vagueness of the language in the treaty had the potential to create situations wherein backdoor firearms registries could be created. He asked that civilian firearms be removed from the scope of the treaty and that it be made explicit. When this request was not met, the decision was made to not move forward with signing on to the treaty. That is what should be happening today.

I understand that, when the Liberals made this promise, they were in opposition and it made for a nice 2015 campaign promise. I know they did not understand the complexities that come with the implementation of these treaties, and they still do not. However, I am asking the government now to consider all the impacts and all the concerns that have been presented. They are not bogus. The government is typically hellbent on consulting. For example, at this very moment, there are currently 87 open consultations, and this is great, if it were really true. It is great that the government will hear concerns on a number of issues.

My question is this. Why will the government not hear from firearms owners? Why will it not at least give firearms owners an opportunity to voice their concerns with this treaty?

It is ironic that one of the Liberals' open consultations right now is on their proposed tax reforms for small businesses, farmers, and physicians. They opened this consultation process in the middle of summer when many Canadians were on vacation and when all farmers were busy working the fields. It is actions like this that make me wonder if the government really wants to hear input or whether it is simply consulting for the sake of saying it consulted.

If the Liberals did open a consultation process on the Arms Trade Treaty, they would hear that firearms owners have a number of very specific concerns. Of particular concern is article 5 of the treaty, which contains several sections, but particularly sections 2 and 4 are quite concerning. Section 2 states:

2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.

Section 4 follows up on section 2 by stating that:

4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.

Those in the firearms community, including me, are concerned that the vague phrasing of these sections has the potential to create a national and/or international registry, which could include civilian firearms and would then be made public. It is a real fear that this could come out of the bill. When expressed, these concerns have fallen on deaf ears with no response from the government. Again, it really does not want to consult or hear.

I can speak first-hand to the level of concern that Canadians have with Bill C-47. I recently sponsored an e-petition. In fact, I have it beside me on my desk, and I will table it in the House tomorrow. The petition was initiated in Prince George, British Columbia. This petition calls on the government to not sign onto the UN Arms Trade Treaty and to not pass Bill C-47 into law as is. If this did not happen, the petitioners call on the government to amend Bill C-47 to not include any of the sections and subsections that would require importers, stores, and individuals to keep any records of any imported or exported firearms, or any article that falls into the brokering control list. Furthermore, the petitioners call on the government to amend the bill to eliminate the penalty for not keeping adequate records, which the legislation states carries a fine not exceeding $250,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both.

This petition has 4,584 signatures on it from ridings right across the country, from ridings of some of my colleagues sitting beside me, and more than likely from ridings of colleagues across the way. They include signatories from every province and territory across the country. That is how widespread this is. The support is also very evenly distributed across the country and does not seem to have any sort of regional bias.

It is a shame that the government must learn about this from me. It would know this information itself if it had done the right thing in the first place and given firearms owners an actual opportunity, a real consultation, to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, this is standard practice. The Liberals give lip service and do not really carry out the consultation in a real, truthful manner. This seems to be the standard practice for the government when it comes to relating to firearms owners in Canada, no matter what the issue.

Given that the government refuses to listen to firearms owners and concerned stakeholders in the firearms community, I would like to take a few moments to read some of the comments from these groups. However, as I must conclude, I will not get a chance to read some of these comments from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the president of the National Firearms Association, and others.

With that, I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues across the way. Lastly, I would urge the government again to do the right thing and do the consultations.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, my colleague indicated toward the beginning of his speech, and I do not want to directly quote him and misquote him as he misquoted me, that he seemed to agree with the intent of the bill, which would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and ensure that international trade in conventional arms would not contribute to international conflict and instability that we know negatively impact women and children more than a lot of other vulnerable groups. The treaty is about import, export, and international brokering environments. My colleague seemed to agree with the notion that it was a good idea and that he could support it.

Let me disabuse him of his misunderstanding of what this bill is not about. It is not about domestic gun controls. Nothing in Bill C-47 affects domestic controls on the lawful and legitimate use of firearms. Second, it would not create a registry of conventional arms. Record keeping for the import and export of arms in Canada has existed since the 1940s. It existed under the Conservative government. Bill C-47 would leave in place the same record keeping of conventional arms that was used under the former Conservative government.

If he agrees with what the bill would do and now has an understanding of what the bill would not do, will he now agree to support it?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, members like my colleague across the way want to cherry-pick my comments. If he had listened to everything I said, and it is obvious that he did not, what I said about dealing arms from bad regimes country to country was one thing. I agree with that, but I talked about firearms that came here affecting civilian firearms owners like myself and thousands of others across the country. He just does not want to buy into that.

Another fact that proves he is wrong is that the bill states that the information has to be retained for six years.

Again, one cannot pick and choose what is in the legislation. It should be amended so it is better. I will look at it, and maybe I will agree, maybe I will not, but the government should at least change the bad parts that law-abiding firearms owners, hunters, shooters, and farmers keep pointing out. The government should make the bill better now that it has the opportunity to do it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, knowing the good common sense of my colleague, I want to ask him if he does not think it despicable that his party voted against a motion that seemed to make a lot of sense and that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Interpretation does not seem to be working.

It seems to be working now. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, knowing the good common sense of my colleague, I want to ask him why his party did not support our bill that would have given some parliamentary oversight of who we were sending arms to. Knowing the member has good common sense, why would his party not support such an idea?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

First, Madam Speaker, I am not sure what legislation my hon. friend is referring to. My party will support anything that is practical and will actually do something as far as the safety of citizens, and that kind of thing. Without having a chance to peruse the bill he talked about, I have to assume that it was not worth the paper it was written on or we would have supported it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. The bill would officially bring Canada into line with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, also known as the ATT.

In a news release issued on April 13, after the bill was tabled, the government stated, “The ATT is about protecting people from arms.”

We have been hearing all day today from our friends across the way about people being harmed. It makes me wonder who the government wants to protect.

Law-abiding firearms owners and merchants are not a threat. In my experience as an RCMP officer, most weapons-related crimes in Canada are committed with firearms that are obtained illegally or usually stolen.

The history of firearms in Canada goes back as far as the country itself. Let us be fair. The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association was founded in 1868, and I do not think there is a province in Canada today that does not have a branch of that association. We have hunters who rely on firearms to provide food for their families as their forefathers did, as the earliest settlers in Canada did. We have farmers who rely on firearms to protect their livestock, as the early settlers did. We have sport shooters who rely on firearms to compete in competitions in the same way as a competitive tennis player relies on his or her tennis racket. We have firearms collectors who seek guns in the same way stamp collectors search for stamps.

The firearms community is a large and diverse group in Canada. These are law-abiding and responsible Canadians, yet the current government seems to think it needs to protect people from firearms. There is a lot of fearmongering today about all the deaths. Somebody before me just quoted that 80 women were raped because it was done at gunpoint and that two thousand people were dying each day because of guns. Let us truly look at where we are on this. Those members fail to realize that firearms have been part of many Canadians' livelihoods for decades.

As the previous speaker stated, we need to look at international gun control and we need to prevent the flow of illegal firearms. However, most important, we must listen to and hear from Canadians. One thing the Liberal government has failed to do is listen to Canadians.

When law-abiding firearms owners or Canadian companies purchase a weapon outside of Canada and wish to import it across the border, they must declare it to Canada Border Services Agency. A great deal of documentation is required and all this bill would do is add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, red tape, and more cost.

It has been mentioned in the House many times today that Canada is probably one of the leading countries in the world with gun control. In fact, we have met 26 of the 28 standards in the ATT. We are probably much more regulated and have better gun control, quality control, export control, and import control than ATT will ever have.

Our previous Conservative government dealt with the UN Arms Trade Treaty when it came into force in December 2014. Its purpose, as we all have heard, is to regulate the international trade of arms so they are not used to support terrorism or international organized crime. I do not think there is anybody in this room who does not support that. I do not know about them, but I do not think farmer Joe in northern Saskatchewan is supporting international organized crime when he imports a rifle, whether he intends to use it for hunting, protecting his livestock, or sport shooting. We are going a bit overboard with the bill. That is why so many of us have stood on this side of the House and have spoken about our concerns. We are speaking for the average Canadian. They want to be heard, and that side does not want to hear them. We have to speak for them.

Our former Prime Minister Harper requested that civilian firearms be removed from this treaty in 2014, yet the UN ignored the request to respect the interests of Canadians and refused to remove civilians from the language of the treaty

What did our previous government do? We did not sign it. We stood up for Canadians. That is what the Liberal government is failing to do. We refused to sign the treaty at that time. The Liberal government is ready to sign a document that is not good for firearm owners. It does nothing to improve the safety of Canadians. This is my opinion. My colleagues across from me may disagree, but let me remind them of something.

The former foreign affairs minister, Stéphane Dion, even admitted this in his own press release issued in June 2016. To paraphrase, it stated that Canada already met the vast majority of its obligations. The treaty was designed to bring other countries up to the high standards that Canada already applied to its export control regime. Therefore, why are we going this way?

During the summer, I attended the Edson rod and gun club range. It is located in a remote part of my riding. The reason it is way out at the end of my riding is because it is one of the longest ranges in Canada. I went there because there was going to be a group called Got Your Six at the range that weekend. Its members were there last year, as was I. This is a group of current and retired military police, firemen, first responders, and civilians. It is a great organization. Members may not have heard of it. It is a charity shooting competition group that raises funds and creates awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Last year, it gathered for its first competitive shooting tournament. It was a popular event. It was amazing to watch the military and civilian marksmen hit a target a mile away time after time. More astounding to see was the camaraderie between the men and women, which is like a brotherhood, by shooting weapons in a competition. They were also gathered there to talk about and help others with post-traumatic stress disorder. That is only a small group of the thousands of Canadians who either sport shoot, hunt, or collect firearms.

This year the same shooting competition quadrupled in attendance. Men and women came from across Canada, some for the competitiveness, many for the camaraderie and fellowship they share as the current and former guardians of our country and the world. These people are not a threat, even though there were all types of weapons there. These people are just a small representation of the thousands who enjoy shooting at local ranges, hunting, or collecting firearms. This bill would not help them in any way. Rather, it would only complicates things for them.

Before we spend a fortune in tax dollars limiting more rights and freedoms, is there a pressing and urgent need for Canada to join the UN Arms Trade Treaty? No.

From my experience, this treaty places undue hardship on law-abiding gun owners and merchants. Canada already implements and complies with the vast majority of the treaty's obligations. We are a safe and law-abiding country, so why this unnecessary change? Why are we punishing responsible firearms owners with this legislation if Canada already meets the vast majority of its obligations?

I can agree with the overall goal of the treaty that aims to prevent illegal transfers of arms that fuel conflict, encourage terrorism, and support organized crime. However, I am concerned that the Liberals have not consulted lawful gun owners. It is not a big surprise, or maybe it is a big surprise considering the number of consultations they have held on almost every other issue, or so they claim. Because of this lack of consultation, they are moving forward with an arms treaty that does not respect the legitimate trade or use of hunting and sporting firearms in this country.

I was alarmed at a statement of the parliamentary secretary in his opening remarks regarding the bill. He talked about how we must lead by example, which our country has done. His other remarks with respect to even more robust legislation to come scare me.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand, from my colleague's speech, where he stands in terms of voting on this bill. He spent about 15 seconds saying that he supports the goal of Bill C-47. He then spent 9.5 minutes talking about something that is not an issue, but something we care deeply about and fully support, which is the lawful use of firearms by hunters, fishermen, and sports shooters.

That is not at issue in this bill. I am interested in and respect his strong feelings on the subject, but what I am interested in knowing is, will he vote for or against this bill, knowing that we would be the last G7 country to join our NATO partners and allies in ratifying this treaty?

If he does not vote for it, how will he explain that to Canadians? I am interested in hearing his answer.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am quite willing to give the member my answer, which is no. It is not because I do not believe that we should participate, it is because the Liberal government did not consult with lawful gun owners. It is ramming it through, and shoving it down the throats of Canadians without proper consultation. That I cannot stand for. I will stand up for the lawful gun owners in my riding and across Canada who are law-abiding citizens.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, does the member agree that we should reduce our trade with states who abuse human rights?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that Canada has a very robust system in place to ensure that we negotiate trade agreements and deals with other countries. We have shown due diligence in the past in how we deal with other countries regarding trade relations, and will do so in the future.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the group Got Your 6 very well. It was lovely to hear about the impact they are having on our military veterans and first responders. As the member is a Mountie veteran, he knows that, and wears it on his sleeve.

The problem is this. The Minister of Transport stated it much more eloquently than the parliamentary secretary, the member for Fredericton, who called asking a question about it bogus. Both members are incorrect. The United States will not fully implement this treaty.

Therefore, the minister was incorrect with respect to that statement, but more importantly, the fact is that the treaty rejected or excluded law-abiding orders. They are all saying it is not in there. The parliamentary secretary even said that asking the question is bogus. The fact that it was excluded means that one would imply that it could be collected from individual owners, their brokers, or both.

Although I know they are not included in the talking points the Liberals are using today, they are genuine questions. However, when law-abiding owners have not been consulted, can the member tell the House how that type of language, bogus and phony, answers the questions of rural Canadians on this issue, because being treated by the government that way creates division, and resurrects the feelings with respect to the Liberal gun registry?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I probably intermingled with 200 to 300 people at the Got Your 6 event, people who have risked their lives to protect people around the world, including Canadians. Is the member saying that what those people want to do for recreation, and the concerns many of them have with respect to this act are bogus? They are law-abiding Canadians. That is why I am standing up to defend their actions. We should respect their concerns, and stand up for them.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to this bill put forward by the Liberal government. During my tenure as parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, I spoke many times to this bill on behalf of the government, and today I will speak about why there is opposition to this bill.

It is very clear that this is one of the election promises the Liberal Party made during the campaign without thinking about it. From their broken promises, like electoral reform, we know the Liberals opposed anything the Conservative government was doing, even if it was doing everything legitimately. They only had one focus. They would not do what the Conservative government wanted to do, which is why, on many occasions, they had to break the promises they made during the election campaign.

Getting back to this bill, during the time I was in government, there were many questions as to why we were not going to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. I have the talking points of the department, the same department that I represented in Parliament at they time. It said this bill was to enhance transparency and accountability in Canada with export controls, and allow accession to the Arms Trade Treaty, which is the major issue.

We are talking about joining the Arms Trade Treaty. The Arms Trade Treaty already has provisions in it. On the major issue of whether that is the right approach to take, of course it is. There is no question that the Arms Trade Treaty is designed to reduce gun violence right across the world.

I travelled all over the world in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs and went to areas where conflicts were taking place. As a matter of fact, I met a child soldier in Burundi who carried an automatic rifle. The point is that most of the people in these conflicts are getting arms through illegal trade, which is thriving around the world.

How do ISIS members have so many arms to fight with? They got the arms that were abandoned by the army. Nevertheless, there is a vast arms trade where conflicts today are still going on. In Africa, where I have been on many occasions, conflicts carry on. Conflicts carry on in Rwanda and Congo. Conflicts carry on in Burundi. Conflicts have gone on and on, because the illegal arms trade is thriving and people can access weapons.

In contrast, the question is, would the Arms Trade Treaty prevent that? This bill is an attempt to do that, but in Canada, having taken many actions over a period of time, we have controls that, at times, do match and even exceed the Arms Trade Treaty. We do have export controls in our system that ensure we control our arms trade exports. The question was asked whether we should sell arms to countries that abuse human rights, or whether we should not trade with them. Trade would give us the leverage to ask them to improve their human rights records, but we can always decide who we are going to sell arms to.

The issue again is the illegal arms trade. The largest exporters of arms in the world are not going to sign this treaty, and if they are not going to sign it, then how will it have an effect? Would it become another of the UN treaties that does not have teeth in it because major players are not signing it? Anytime we sign an international treaty, the question we need to answer in Canada is, how will it impact the domestic scene?

My colleagues have already indicated this very eloquently. During the time the parliamentary secretary, the NDP, and the Liberals were all asking us to sign the treaty, no one was talking about the impact on the domestic scene.

On the domestic scene, we have already indicated it could have a negative impact on sports gun owners. If it is going to have an impact, would there not then be two points to look at? Number one, is the treaty effective, because as I just pointed out, Russia and the U.S. will not sign it? Number two, will it have a negative impact on the domestic scene? Yes it will, as has already been indicated.

Therefore, what would be the point of signing something that has no value to us? Is it because the NDP and the Liberals want to look good and feel good, like sunny days, and sign the treaty? However, in reality, we are already doing it.

One of the reasons we did not sign it, when we were in government, was because it did not meet the major objectives. We already have and exceed a majority of those points that are mentioned in the treaty, but no one has addressed the issue of where it would overstretch itself in domestic laws. When we pointed this out to the UN, it did not want to change it. Maybe the reason was that in other parts of the world there was not enough sport hunting, or whatever. The fact of the matter is, when we are looking at Canada signing it, we must look at our laws to see how this would impact domestic laws. That has been made very clear.

It becomes pretty obvious that signing the treaty there would be three points. Number one, it was an election promise, and a thorough review was not carried out. Number two, this would impact domestic markets. Number three, it would not be very effective, because of the other players who export arms who will not be signing it.

We have said, and the government has said it, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side would agree, we need to make decisions ourselves as to who we are going to sell these products. Are we going to sell them to countries a, b, c? It is for us to decide, and we do have robust controls, and robust debates going on as to who we should and should not sell to.

One of the aspects of the treaty is that we take away these controls. The treaty would take away the controls from DND as to what it can decide, who can decide, and what it can do. Why are we giving our authority, our sovereignty, over to a treaty that is not a very strong treaty. If this was a very strong treaty, we could look at it. If the UN had come back and said it would take Canada's domestic concerns into account, then we would have signed it when we were in government.

I will just point out that it would not be in the interest of Canada to sign the treaty. We can take the provisions that are in the bill, if the government wants to, to enhance robust ways to ensure we have domestic controls, and exports controls, which we do. It is not a question that we do not have them. We already have them. Therefore, this bill and this whole thing is not really something that enhances anything around the world in stopping the arms flow, or the trade flow that is going on all over the world. Conflicts are going on, and we need to address the bigger issue.

Conflicts are going on around the world. There are conflicts in Africa, conflicts in the Middle East. ISIL is a danger. All of these places are fuelled by arms from the illegal arms trade. We have seen the movie about the blood diamonds, and the Kimberley process was one way to stop the trade in blood diamonds, which was fuelling the illegal arms trade. That was something that we supported. That was a positive step taken internationally to stop the arms trade. These are the kinds of initiatives that we need to take.

It becomes critically important to see how the illegal arms trade is thriving. This is where we can go and where we can put our efforts. There is no point in telling us, because we already have it. It is not that we do not have a record. We already have it. We have good controls, so there is no point in our being penalized to do something that is not going to be effective because the treaty unfortunately does not have teeth.

We can continue. We can return to the UN and suggest we look at this whole thing again, but at this time we would not be supporting it because we do not think it is in the best interests of Canada to sign the Arms Trade Treaty.

On the international scene, the proliferation of arms is a major concern. The North Korea issue right now of firing ballistic missiles over Japan and not signing this treaty is a cause of concern. Whether it is nuclear weapons or small arms, proliferation is now on the rise around the world. Collectively we would have to go around and ask how we get there.

Following the Cambodian dictatorship, when thousands of people lost their lives, and now with the wars that are going on, there has been a terrible legacy of arms floating around in the world. The UN ought to do better and see how it can somehow get these arms back out of these places. I visited Cambodia and also saw how the mines in Mozambique were maiming people. We had a program to blow up the mines, and I actually had an opportunity to blow up a mine in Cambodia.

The dangers from conflicts and the arms that have been deployed are a cause of concern, and we must carry on addressing them. Of course we all remember that after the fall of the U.S.S.R., we came to remove nuclear weapons there so that they would be removed from the market. The issue is how we can access and address whatever is fuelling all these wars around the world.

Of course, a continuing issue here is what can be done with rogue countries that do not listen to these treaties and do not abide by the treaties. The best example is North Korea. It does not abide by any treaty and is now creating a very dangerous situation.

Having been to South Korea and North Korea and the demilitarized zone, I can tell members that it is a very dangerous situation. I talked to the South Koreans, who live under a constant threat that anything can happen. We can make very big statements, but those who live under this shadow have a very different experience, and they look to countries like ours to see how we can defuse the situation. Canada has a unique position in the world, with our diplomats and so on. We have a good reputation and we can use our good offices.

However, it is critically important that our good offices not be used to go out and sign something that is of no consequence. We should focus our energies on ensuring we get arms out of circulation so the illegal arms trade can be minimized and conflicts can reduced. For example, how do the pirates in Somalia get their weapons? Where do they get their weapons from? How do all these people manage to get weapons? There are no weapons factories at all in Somalia. How does al Shabaab get its arms? These are issues we need to discuss. We need to find out how and why these terrorist groups have easy access to arms. Now we come along, bringing this treaty, and say that this will try to stop it. Well, this treaty is not going to stop it.

Domestically, Canada has robust controls over the arms industry. Canadians should be proud that because of robust arms controls, Canadian arms are not used overseas and are not part of the many conflicts going on. Should it come to light that this is not the case, we can take corrective actions.

Again, one needs to look at the larger picture and ask what we can do to achieve reduction of tensions and wars around the world. That is the objective of the government, as well as of the NDP at the United Nations. That is what we want to achieve. Working collaboratively, we can achieve that. However, when people say that we want to sign a treaty that is totally ineffective and intrudes on our laws locally, that will make Canadians uncomfortable. We already have robust controls to ensure we are not fuelling wars around the world with our arms. Canadians can be proud of that.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has spoken quite eloquently about how ineffective this treaty will be, yet his colleagues are suggesting it is going to do things it does not even say it is going to do. I am a little confused.

I would like to point out that the Government of Canada has required records on the export and import of arms since 1942 to ensure compliance with the Export and Import Permits Act. This legislation would make no changes to the type or nature of the information currently required from those individuals seeking to import or export arms. There is no change to the system that existed under the Conservative Party previously. They were happy with it then.

I am curious. What has changed for the member, and why does he not like it now?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple and straightforward. I said right from the beginning that there are two elements to this bill. One is to enhance transparency and accountability of the export controls, which are very robust. The member has just pointed out that we have had it since 1942. That does not change.

Why are we going to go do that when, as you yourself have pointed out, it is already there. We are talking about the Arms Trade Treaty. We are not talking because someone says—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, after 20 years, I should have known that, I should be doing that. I apologize.

We are talking about the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty is what concerns this bill, and not the controls. The hon. member has pointed out rightly that we clearly have robust controls in this country.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his fact and opinion filled speech.

He will forgive me for asking a question that may have already been asked, but I would like to know his reaction to the fact that trucks manufactured in Canada are sold in Saudi Arabia and are used against civilians. I would simply like his opinion on that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a robust relationship with Saudi Arabia, both in trade and politically. I have been to Saudi Arabia many times. If we see credible evidence that this is what is happening, it allows us, through our connections with Saudi Arabia, to talk to the Saudis and tell them that this is unacceptable and that our vehicles cannot be used to suppress human rights. It is very clear—and that is the whole point—that within our control regime, we do have the ability to tell them that if they are doing that, they did wrong.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am continuing to focus on how the government, in its approach to debate on this subject, is suggesting that any Canadian who may have a question about the breadth of this treaty and its application is somehow making bogus arguments. We have heard many of our members suggest specific passages in the legislation, by reference to the treaty, that they have concerns with. We have heard that a specific exclusion of lawful firearms owners, hunters, sport shooters, and things like that, was rejected throughout the treaty process.

When we approach statutory interpretation, if there is silence or uncertainty, we sometimes will read in favour of what the treaty or the piece of legislation is trying to do. Therefore, the silence here is a genuine question. Could the member tell us his thoughts, as the dean of our caucus, on how that attitude of not listening to valid concerns of Canadians back in the mid-1990s, when a different Liberal government was introducing a long-gun registry, made people feel like they were part of the problem, because their questions and any concerns they had were not even taken as genuine?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Durham for his new position as critic for foreign affairs. I am sure he is going to do a great job holding the government accountable.

Coming to that point, when I am speaking very clearly as the dean of the caucus knowing about this, the other side is just presenting talking points that were given to them to justify this. They have not been told what is wrong and what is not wrong. They have just been saying to go ahead on this thing.

It is our job on the opposition side to say what is wrong with what they are doing and what they have done. Therefore, naturally, we will not expect them to give an answer to us, but just stick to their talking points. As we all know, all my colleagues have stood up and said very strongly why we do not want to sign this treaty.

To answer my friend's question, they are relying on their talking points.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way continually tries to regurgitate an issue from the 1990s, knowing full well that this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the gun registry. The members across the way know that. That is the reality. They then try to say that the government is not listening to Canadians. There has been no government in recent history that has listened to Canadians more than this government.

I would challenge the members across the way. Under Stephen Harper, how many town halls, outreach programs, and consultations were done under the Harper government over 10 years? They could count them on one hand.

The Conservatives need to calm themselves down and not get too excited. This has nothing to do with the gun registry. I am sorry to disappoint them all, but that is the reality.

The member has travelled all over the world. Does he not believe, as Liberals believe, that Canada has a leadership role to play in the world? This is an arms treaty, the first of its kind, and it can have a profound, positive impact at making our world a better, safer place to live. The Conservatives would do well by supporting the legislation, just like every other G7 country and NATO country. You name it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thoroughly enjoy hearing my colleague whenever he stands up. He used to stand up with the same rhetoric when he was in the opposition, talking the same way as he does now. Now that he is on the other side, nothing has changed. It is the same old rhetoric. All he cares about is that there was a consultation. He should really look back and ask himself why he did not follow through on electoral reform. Why did he not follow through? What is he doing now with the small business tax? What information and what consultation is he doing? One minute the Liberals say they are doing consultations and the next minute we hear the Prime Minister say that he is not going to change it. Is that consultation? All these things tell us to take a nice little breath.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been a matter of shock and dismay to hear my colleagues from Conservative benches claim that anyone who reads this bill with an open mind, as I have, and cannot see a single thing that could possibly lead to an impact on domestic gun sales is somehow blinded by talking points. As an opposition member, I have a lot that I want fixed in Bill C-47, such as the loopholes that would allow weapons to be sold through the United States.

This is the Arms Trade Treaty. Its terms as a treaty speak directly to the illicit trade in arms, and the global export of arms. The Conservative talking points to create fear among legal gun owners make as much sense as complaining that in the acid rain negotiations the government of the day never consulted with people who make umbrellas.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I was on the other side, the member brought the same question, and I already answered that.

These are not talking points. The fact of the matter is that we have pointed out and we keep pointing out what is wrong with the Arms Trade Treaty. This is the issue we have pointed out correctly over here: that it would impact us on domestic things. Whether she agrees or not is not the issue.

She may not see it, but others have, such as my colleague who was going to read all of the letters that he got from gun owners saying what is wrong with the bill. This is maybe how she should be consulting to get a broader picture on how things happen.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, Public Safety.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-47. Before I speak to the bill itself, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his learned comments. As he mentioned, he is the dean of our caucus and was first elected to this place on October 2, 1997, when I was in grade 7. I believe he holds the record as the longest serving parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs. It is always a pleasure to speak in his shadow.

I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I look forward to his comments as well on this important issue.

I find it interesting that we are debating Bill C-47 today because, after all, this legislation was first tabled in the House of Commons on April 13, 2017, more than five months ago. Granted there was a summer recess in-between.

Over the summer, like many colleagues I had the opportunity to travel around my riding, host round tables, speak to constituents, hold stakeholder meetings, go to people's homes and speak about the important issues that are affecting them. I did hear about the ATT on a handful of occasions. I heard from a couple of people who were in favour of it and a couple of dozen who were opposed. That is the joy of democracy; there are people on both sides of the issues.

I find it interesting that we are debating this today when the opposition has yet to be given a single supply day in this period. We have also been told that there will be no supply day next week as well. Here we are debating the government's agenda but have been given zero opportunities to raise a motion in the allotted days we are entitled to as the official opposition. Is the government simply trying to avoid accountability on key issues that it knows it is hiding from? An example is the changes to the tax rules.

As I travelled in my riding this summer, I talked to people about these tax changes. I talked to farmers who want to pass on their farm to their daughters or sons, but these tax changes would potentially prevent them from doing so. I talked to the small business owner who may want to hire one or two more people but may not do so because of uncertainly. Family doctors are concerned because the changes may potentially impact their patients. These are people I am hearing from in my riding but here we are debating Bill C-47.

We are debating this treaty and its implementation today, which is interesting because the mechanisms that we have in place today, the rules that have been in place in Canada for many decades, already achieve what the government purports to want to achieve through Bill C-47.

A perfect case in point is that since the 1940s, through the Export and Import Permits Act, the government has had the ability to exclude and prevent the sale and export of any number of items, including what it is trying to achieve through this legislation. One need only look at the export control list under the auspices of the Export and Import Permits Act to find that much of what the government is trying to achieve is already in place: group 1, dual use; group 2, munitions; group 3, nuclear proliferation; and group 4, nuclear-related dual use.

The government is once again using a symbolic gesture in an area where issues are already addressed through existing mechanisms that previous governments of all stripes have put in place over the years. For it to try to change to a system with no noticeable improvement is unfortunate and, frankly, not a good use of the House's time when there is so much more that we parliamentarians, that we Canadians, can be debating in this place on behalf of our constituents.

The collection of data, the collection of information, is also interesting when the fact of the matter is that under the regimes that are currently in place here in Canada through the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada, a lot of the information on items that are exported from Canada is already being collected and provided to the appropriate agencies within Canada, and yet the government here today is bringing in yet another bill to collect information that is already being collected.

What is interesting as well is that this is not the only tool at the disposal of the government. The government has many opportunities to restrict the sale of goods to foreign entities. One example is the area control list. Currently the only country that Canada has placed on that list is North Korea, but it is certainly open to the government to place any number of countries on that list if it has sufficient grounds to cut off all exports to that country. I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who would disagree with placing North Korea on that list. I think that would be right and correct, and all Canadians would agree with that.

If the government has concerns about another entity, as it has in the past, for example, with Myanmar and Belarus, which have both been on this list, the government could register those concerns through the area control list and add a certain country to the list to block exports altogether to that country. That is especially the case when we are looking at regimes that may use any number of products against their own citizens or against those in the region, something that we would strongly oppose.

I find it interesting to talk about the measures that are already in place and their strength, but do not always just take our word for it. I would like to quote a government official, from a June 2016 Globe and Mail article. In the article he is quote as saying that he believes we already have sufficient restrictions on arms exports:

“Canada already has some of the strongest export controls in the world which means that we already meet the vast majority of the obligations under the arms trade treaty,” said the senior official in a briefing.

In a real sense, this treaty was designed to bring other countries—many of whom have no export control regimes in place—up to the high standards that Canada and our like-minded allies already apply through our robust export control regimes," the official said.

That brings me to my next point, the other countries that are missing from the ATT, namely Russia, China, India, and the United States, which has signed it but not yet ratified it. Whether or not it will is not a decision for this House to make, but certainly one that is questionable given where it now is.

That is not say that we as Canadians should not act on the world stage. Certainly, we Canadians have always played a leadership role on the world stage. I think of our former government playing that leading role internationally on a number of fronts over the past 10 years.

However, to sign on to this treaty and to bring forward the legislation to ratify it at this point, without the key players having signed on or ratified it, I think is a challenge. Mr. Speaker, I think you would agree that it raises more concerns than it answers.

In preparing a few remarks for today, I came across the press release from Global Affairs Canada when this bill was tabled on April 13, 2017. It states:

To implement necessary changes, in March 2017 Canada announced an investment of $13 million to further strengthen the country’s export control regime.

Granted, I was relatively young in 1995, but I remember another Liberal government promising that a certain long-gun registry would cost $2 million, and yet, over the years, the Auditor General found it cost upwards of a $1 billion.

I find it interesting that the government is proposing a $13 million price tag, but has not yet tabled a coherent plan for how that $13 million will be spent and where the cost overrides may or may not arise if that $13 million is used up relatively quickly.

I have heard members on the other side go as far as saying that claims or concerns of law-abiding gun owners are “bogus”. It is really bringing down the tone and the level of debate in the House to dismiss the concerns of legitimate, law-abiding gun owners as bogus.

I am very proud of my family. My late grandfather came to Canada in 1952. In 1974, he helped co-found the Swiss Rifle Club near my home town of Mitchell. I was proud, as a kid, to have been able to join him and my father at the rifle range to learn about the safety of guns and rifles, and I am proud of the legitimate gun owners in my riding and across Canada.

I know that my time has come to an end, but I look forward to continued debate on this matter and the questions that may come my way.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about a gun registry, which the member spent some time talking about, but about a UN Arms Trade Treaty. We heard some very compelling stories earlier from a member's speech about women in the Congo noticing that we had not signed on to this agreement, talking about arms trade and how it was used for sexual violence in other countries, and that it was actually a stain on the way our country was viewed in other countries internationally that we had not yet signed this treaty.

Speaking to the issue at hand, what this is truly about, which is signing on to this Arms Trade Treaty, does he oppose our signing on to this agreement?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is very simple. The rules and mechanisms already in place, from a Canadian perspective, in most cases—and I would dare say in all cases—far exceed what was being proposed in the ATT. For Canada to sign on to the ATT goes against what we have already achieved in this country. I do not want to read anything into the hon. member's comments, but I think what she would be concerned about is the international community and many of the other countries that have not signed on to this deal and will not sign on to this deal but are continuing to participate in activities that are vile and reprehensible. We can all agree that the example of Congo is a terrible situation, absolutely abhorrent, and something that all Canadians oppose. We can think of examples worldwide where there are terrible atrocities, which we, as Canadians and human beings, strongly oppose in the strongest language possible.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do the member and the Conservative Party agree that Canada should reduce trade with countries that abuse human rights?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we as Canadians and as a Parliament need to overwhelmingly condemn human rights abuses wherever they may be found. It falls to the government in office to take action and make sanctions where appropriate, but as Canadians, parliamentarians, and human beings, we must call out human rights abuses wherever they may be found. I know in my party, and hopefully in all parties, what is happening currently in Myanmar is a good example of where those actions and language must be taken very strongly.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune of visiting the riding of the member for Perth—Wellington not just for the lovely theatre in Stratford but for a business round table. I know that the member for Toronto—Danforth would have heard the same concerns I heard there from small business, because she has been critical of her government's ham-fisted approach to small business. We heard it that day at that round table.

I have a theory. Perhaps the government is signing on to this one UN treaty because it is planning to withdraw from three other treaties. I will name them: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that Canada has been a signatory to since 1961; the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988. The Prime Minister's direction with respect to marijuana means that the government is going to possibly have to withdraw from those three UN treaties.

Is it the opinion of the member that this could be a one-for-three treaty swap?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Durham for his great question and hard work over the summer. I know he went to many round tables, but I appreciate his coming to my riding.

I think he is probably right, but the interesting challenge with withdrawing from those three UN treaties is that the government simply does not have time to do that in the time period before July 1, 2018, its arbitrary deadline for the introduction of the marijuana legislation, which it promised to do by July 1. It may well want to withdraw, but it has missed the boat in terms of signing on in time. Withdrawing from three and signing on to one is an interesting theory. I just wish it would do that with some of the regulatory burden and red tape that, writ large, is happening. If it could eliminate three barriers to small businesses in favour of one, that is a three-for-one deal that I could really get behind.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-47, the act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code.

When it comes to imports and exports, the Canada Border Services Agency officers are on the front lines. They are responsible for enforcing the Canadian laws governing the people and goods that come into our country.

I would like to take a few minutes to acknowledge the CBSA's officers, because the work they do and the huge responsibility they have in keeping Canadians safe and keeping goods moving into our country rarely make the headlines. I think every member in this House is aware of how important CBSA officers are. They keep our country safe, and I know I speak for many when I thank them for their dedication and their vigilance.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Customs and Immigration Union for their leadership. I want to thank the national president, Jean-Pierre Fortin, and his team for the fantastic work they are doing. My team and I will be meeting with Mr. Fortin very shortly for what we expect to be some very fruitful and informative discussions.

Let me be clear about this. The Conservative Party has always supported efforts to establish international standards for arms transfers that help prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflicts and encourage terrorism or organized crime. We also believe that the treaty in question should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful firearm ownership by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sports shooting, hunting, and collecting.

The spirit of such a treaty would obviously focus on military and security equipment. If the treaty language cannot make the difference between military equipment and hunters and sportsmen, that language must be reviewed.

In September 2016, the CSSA, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, called on Minister of Foreign Affairs to re-examine, re-evaluate, and re-think the decision on the treaty. In other words, the Liberals are sloppy in their approach to representing Canadians. As a matter of fact, it leaves Canadians unsure of who the Prime Minister is working for. Is he looking to impress the U.N. or is his heart with Canadians?

The Liberals are unfair to Canadians. As is the case for small business, there have been no consultations addressing concerns about how this bill could affect hunters, sports shooters, and recreational users. The Liberals have never been very concerned about these people and have never taken them seriously in the past. Today, the same thing is happening. The Liberals do not care about them and in light of the bill they introduced, Bill C-47, I am convinced that they have no intention of considering their concerns in the future, either.

Canada already has an internal system for monitoring and controlling the exports of military and security equipment, which meets and even exceeds the conditions of the UN treaty. The government will therefore have to demonstrate why we need to enhance the process already in place.

The Government of Canada's Trade Controls Bureau is responsible for enforcing the Export and Import Permits Act. This bureau has made it possible for the minister to prevent the sale of military equipment to various countries for many reasons, including security risks.

The Liberals must explain what precisely it is missing. We have yet to be shown that the Trade Controls Bureau is not effective. We already have what we need in Canada.

Canada already limits the movement of military material that is strategically used in two ways, including nuclear energy and materials, missiles, chemical or biological products, and cryptologic equipment.

I spoke earlier of the CBSA role. CBSA and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classify the information using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization. Do members think we are doing enough? I think so. Now, if that is not enough, I will also tell members that Canada has a blanket ban on risk countries under the Export and Import Permit Act.

Through an act of Governor in Council, a country can be placed on that list. Therefore, we are well covered here. However, the Liberals have tabled Bill C-47, and the burden is on them to show why we must sign this treaty.

Canada is already doing better than the treaty in question. Canada is a world leader in the diplomatic process. Canada is a model for other countries to follow, not the other way around. I am proud of my country. I am proud of our parliamentary system. I am proud that Canada is easily the best country in the world to live, to work, and to raise a family.

Since we will be debating this bill over the next few days, I hope that we can talk about it from the standpoint of what is currently happening in Canada. Canadians' needs have to be considered as we debate this bill. Then we can consider the needs of the UN.

Let us not forget that we could work with our NATO and UN allies, and that we will continue to do so, for example to restrict arms sales to North Korea.

We will also work in conflict zones and we will prevent anyone who might threaten world peace from pursuing technological activities. Of course, Canada will always be a partner for peace.

When we talk about responsible countries leading the way by example, no country other than Canada comes to mind. Countries that do better than Canada simply do not exist. It is time that we recognized that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that often comes up in my riding is the long-gun registry. Firearms owners in my riding do not trust the Liberals when it comes to firearms and firearm registries in our country. I hear from them all the time their concerns that this is the first step in bringing forward a long-gun registry. I wonder if my colleague has any comment on that, and in particular how it would affect perhaps also the sovereignty of Canada.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question from my colleague.

Indeed, we have seen that the Liberals have always hated hunters, the honest people of this land, because they still want to bring back the long-gun registry.

This UN treaty covers hunting firearms, not just military-grade weapons and missiles. In fact the treaty mentions hunting firearms. This means the gun manufacturers and their customers will have trouble buying and selling hunting rifles. To please the UN, we are going to make the law-abiding hunters of Canada pay the price. Maybe the Prime Minister is acting this way because he is hoping for a Nobel Peace Prize, who knows.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member. I will be asking the question in English. I am working on my French, and hopefully soon I will be able to ask him in the proper language.

I am very frustrated with how many people who have intervened today are reading so much into the bill. I ran in 2011, and I can assure everyone in the House I have absolutely no interest in talking about the gun registry.

My question for the member is this. Has the member had a chance to read the definition of “broker” under proposed amended subsection 2(1), which specifically defines “broker” as someone performing the transaction of arms from one foreign country to another? Could the member explain what this possibly has to do with domestic guns? How does this have anything to do those good Canadians who own guns, who are responsible gun owners?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Even if he did ask it in English, he did so very politely.

My colleague raises an issue with Bill C-47 that merits discussion. He wants to know if I have seen the provision about brokering. It just goes to show that instead of clearly stating whether hunting firearms are excluded or not, this government is using jargon to try to throw people off. This issue will certainly need to be discussed and clarified to determine whether the UN treaty protects hunters, who are law-abiding citizens. That needs to be spelled out clearly and if it is not, we should not join this treaty.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to ask my question in French.

When I read Bill C-47 I cannot fathom how it would apply to Canada's hunters. That is incredible. It is not possible. I studied law and I worked as a lawyer, and it seems impossible to me.

Can the member explain it to me and show me the words in the Bill that apply to hunters?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent French. We take part in the debates in the House to try to understand one another, as colleagues. We need to explain ourselves.

The problem with Bill C-47 is the implementation of a UN treaty that has indirect implications for hunting firearms. If it is not clear in Bill C-47, there is a problem, and that is why we cannot pass such a bill.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

[Member spoke in aboriginal language]

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time, but I have not yet been told with whom.

I would like to start by saying that we will be supporting this bill at second reading, even though we are not completely satisfied with its contents. There are gaps. In fact, as my colleagues mentioned, there are gaps and serious concerns that we want to raise during this debate and also in committee.

Furthermore, the concerns that this bill raises, at least for our party, are rather important. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether the countries we sell arms to violate the most basic rights, that is, human rights. This is a fundamental concern because respecting these rights is one of our obligations as a country.

Under paragraph 3 of article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, we have responsibilities and obligations to respect and promote human rights, fundamental rights, and rights and freedoms.

I also invite my colleagues to read articles 55 and 56 of the UN charter to which Canada is bound as a country. It is absolutely essential that we understand this responsibility that we have as a country when we discuss, negotiate, and sign international agreements.

To me, this is the legislative framework in international law that must guide us in this type of discussion, both internationally and domestically. We must always keep these responsibilities in mind.

We have an opportunity to improve the text before us in light of the first two points I mentioned. It is part of our responsibility as elected members. We need to be transparent every time we introduce a bill, including every time we introduce one that will have an impact on human rights. That is the practice in international law. In fact, when we sign international treaties, especially free trade agreements, international law practice is to verify the repercussions of those treaties on human rights. Similarly, some countries verify for the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. That is a good example that I will come back to. Some countries that sign free trade agreements make sure to consider the consequences of those agreements to the rights of indigenous peoples. It is easy to imagine the same scenario in this discussion on renewing the North American Free Trade Agreement. Let us not forget that every time we sign agreements, there are repercussions on the country's natural resources, for instance.

Even though under our Constitution natural resources fall within provincial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has already indicated and reaffirmed several times that these jurisdictions are not absolute, particularly when they affect other aspects, such as the constitutional rights of indigenous people, as is the case here. It is important that we keep these things in mind in this discussion.

As I was also saying, one of the major concerns we have on this side of the House with regard to this bill is that it does not include an assessment process prior to authorization of export permits. I find that completely unacceptable. I spent over 20 years on the international stage negotiating one of the most important UN human rights declarations, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Those negotiations, which could not have been more multilateral, took 23 years. Sometimes there were over 1,000 people in the room, all talking, deliberating, and drafting this all-important document, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Prime Minister even mentioned that document before the UN today, as did the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs last year.

It is important to understand that this prior assessment is crucial if we want to play a leadership role on the world stage. I know that, for almost 10 years before this government came to power, that aspect of our responsibility as a state and our role on the world stage were somewhat neglected. I worked with the United Nations for 23 years before the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and during that time, whenever Canada took the floor at an international forum, the world listened.

When we talk about international and foreign affairs here, we must ensure that our decision-making is principled, particularly when it comes to human rights. We must make sure of that if we want to reclaim the status we once enjoyed.

I see that I have just one minute left.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The member has a minute and a half to complete his speech before questions and comments.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to wrap things up. My point is that our role on the world stage is an important one. I wanted to share an example about how we all know that, in conflict zones, the most vulnerable people are women, girls, and children. That is why we have to make sure the bill contains measures to protect the basic rights of those children, those girls, those women. The international framework is already in place. All we have to do is meet our obligations under international law. I think that is one of the major omissions in this bill.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

On this side of the aisle, we share his view that it is time for Canada to reclaim its role as a world leader. We are working hard every day to reaffirm that Canada is here to help make the world a safer, fairer, and more peaceful place.

I just wanted to clarify one point raised by my colleague. Maybe I misunderstood, and if so I apologize, but this bill definitely does create a legal obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take into account certain mandatory considerations before issuing an export permit or brokering permit. That is definitely what this bill is trying to do.

Have I misunderstood my colleague, or has he not understood the intent of this bill?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate this question, because one of the problems with this bill is the fact that it is not clear on this point. We need to make sure the rules we adopt in this type of situation are very clear and are enshrined in the act, not in the regulations. That is the main point that needs to be made, because that is not the case right now.

Polls show that the majority of Canadians are against signing arms deals with countries that are human rights abusers. When it comes to dealing arms to countries with a poor or questionable human rights record, being very clear on this point should be our number one priority.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, since the 1940s Canada has had a regime in place to control, track, and regulate the export of military equipment, nuclear, biological, a whole range of items. That has been done very well and effectively.

As the former minister of the government for foreign affairs has acknowledged, and who we have quoted, many aspects of what we have already been doing for decades meet and exceed what is in the ATT.

I would like the member's thoughts on whether it is reasonable for hunters and sports shooters across the country to have a question about things? We keep hearing Liberal after Liberal saying that it is not in here and that it does not deal with this, even though there are genuine questions on it.

I remind the Liberals that sometimes a legislature's failure to mention something is grounds to infer that it was deliberately excluded. People were asking for a carve out or an exception for hunters and sports shooters, lawful users of firearms. The very fact that it was not included in either the treaty or in Bill C-47 leads some to infer it was deliberately excluded. This is a legal principle, and it is reasonable.

Does the member think it is reasonable for these people to ask these questions while this bill is being pushed through the House?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am part of the last generation of Crees born on the land. I spent the first seven years of my life hunting, fishing, and trapping out on the land before being sent to a residential school for 10 years. I can tell the member that I have several guns in my home, and there is absolutely no provision in this legislation that threatens my right to have those guns. I have not found any. If he has a provision, I would like to read it.

There are many more important issues. My main preoccupation is human rights in this particular case. I have been fighting for human rights all my life. As a member of Parliament, who has a duty to uphold the rule of law, I want to make sure human rights are always protected in whatever we do legislatively in this place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from September 21 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Kitchener Centre.

During the course of the first day of debate on Bill C-47, certain members of this House chose to focus their sights on unfounded concerns with respect to the legitimate use of firearms by law-abiding, licensed firearm owners in Canada. Today, I intend to set the record straight.

It was clear during that debate that there was a deep-seated misunderstanding of the objectives of Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. It is therefore my intent to address and allay these concerns by factually outlining the intent of the ATT and of this legislation.

I will be absolutely crystal clear on this point. Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will have no effect on law-abiding Canadian firearm owners, whether they be shooting trap or skeet, hunting upland birds and big game, or keeping their farm animals safe from coyotes. The Arms Trade Treaty is about preventing the proliferation of conventional arms to people or places where lives could be put at risk, where our national security or that of our allies would be undermined, or where we might expect serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law to occur.

Some of our colleagues suggested in the previous day's debate that the treaty and Bill C-47 do not have a carve-out or other protections for legitimate and law-abiding gun owners. On this subject, let me be equally clear.

The Arms Trade Treaty preamble recognizes very clearly the “legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law”. This language sets the context for the ATT and makes it clear that the ATT is not intending to challenge or prevent legitimate trade and ownership of conventional arms when permitted by domestic law.

The ATT also reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system”. This is why in this bill there is not a single proposed amendment to the Firearms Act, which is the act responsible for possession, manufacturing, and transfer of firearms in Canada.

I will again reiterate that the rights of law-abiding Canadian firearm owners are not and will not be affected by Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty, full stop. The rights of law-abiding Canadian firearms owners are permitted and protected in Canadian law and regulation, and this will not change.

It is incorrect to say that the Arms Trade Treaty does not recognize the lawful use of firearms subject to relevant national laws. Moreover, we have concrete evidence that there has been no effect on firearm owners in Canada due to the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty in other jurisdictions, such as Europe, for example. If a Canadian wishes to import a Benelli shotgun from Italy or a Walther target pistol from Germany, the process remains straightforward. First, the individual importing the firearm into Canada must be at least 18 and hold a valid possession and acquisition licence for a non-restricted or restricted firearm. Second, the firearm must be declared to Canadian customs and the appropriate duties and taxes paid. This is the current process, and it will not change after Canada's accession to the ATT.

I would also point out that there is no requirement to seek import authorization in advance for non-restricted or restricted firearms or firearm parts. This would not change with Bill C-47. The Arms Trade Treaty has been enforced in Germany and Italy since December 2014, and those countries still have no issues with exporting firearms to law-abiding Canadian firearm owners.

Canada's accession to the ATT would also not affect the ability of law-abiding Canadians to travel overseas with their firearms. Whether they are travelling to the U.K. for a shooting competition or France to hunt pheasants in Brittany, the temporary export process is very straightforward and would not change with the implementation of Bill C-47.

Those Canadians would be required to comply with local laws, but if the U.K. or French government wished to verify an individual's permit, we can already provide that assurance without compromising personal information. If people are planning a hunting trip in the United States, the process is even simpler, as long as they comply with the relevant local U.S. laws.

The last issue I wish to address is the concerns expressed by some of our hon. colleagues with respect to the record-keeping provisions in Bill C-47. My colleagues have suggested that article 12 of the Arms Trade Treaty introduces new obligations on Canada to collect information and to provide such information to the Arms Trade Treaty secretariat.

This is not accurate. Article 12 speaks solely to what a country should include in its national record-keeping. In this regard, Canada's existing system of export record-keeping meets the Arms Trade Treaty obligations. No change is needed and no change will be made.

The record-keeping requirements of the Export and Import Permits Act predates the Arms Trade Treaty by decades. Exporters have been required to keep all relevant records to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the act, since 1947. The time limitation of six years plus the current year has been on the books since 2006. Canadian exporters are already very familiar with these requirements, and it is incorrect to characterize these requirements as being new.

The existing record keeping-requirements of the Export and Import Permits Act are familiar to all Canadians involved in the legitimate trade of arms. The slight amendment to add “organization” is related specifically to obligations with respect to brokering only.

There will be no requirement to register or retain information with regard to the purchase of a foreign-made weapon, if purchased in Canada. Once legally imported into Canada, no information will be retained for the purpose of the bill. The Arms Trade Treaty does not apply to domestic trade in arms.

In addition, there is no requirement in article 12 of the Arms Trade Treaty to share national records with other member states or with the Arms Trade Treaty secretariat.

The Arms Trade Treaty reporting requirements are contained in article 13 of the ATT, and these annual reporting requirements are not new either. Article 13 of the treaty clearly states that the data that is reported to the Arms Trade Treaty secretariat can reflect the same data as what was listed in annual reports to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms for the specific items covered by the Arms Trade Treaty.

Canada has been filing these reports to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms for 15 years, since 2002. Again, this is nothing new and it is a long-standing national obligation to report that data in aggregate form. No confidential personal or business information is contained in those reports.

The Arms Trade Treaty is about seeking to ensure that weapons exported from Canada or sales brokered in Canada or by Canadians do not accidentally fuel conflict or contribute to violations of international law. The ATT itself is intended to contribute to international peace and prevent human suffering. Canadians expect their government to show global leadership in this regard.

The ATT and this legislation are not about a long-gun registry. Our accession to the ATT will not change the rights and responsibilities of recreational and sporting gun owners in Canada, and Bill C-47 will not create any new obligations on gun owners in Canada. Canadians who export or import firearms will continue to operate exactly as they do now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is a sensitive issue in my colleague's riding because there are many law-abiding, responsible gun owners living in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The member says that nothing is wrong, that there is nothing to see here as a problem, but the major firearms organizations that represent firearms owners in Canada do have major concerns. At first blush, who should we believe, those organizations or the member?

He said we already have a strong system of arms control and this new legislation would not involve any new obligations for anybody. That effectively is what he said. If that is true, then why in the world are we even moving forward with this? Why would we not accept the existing system? What is the point if all of these things already exist anyway?

Could my colleague tell me, first, why we should not listen to firearms organizations, and second, if what he says is true, what is the point?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has changed with Bill C-47 is the fearmongering on the other side and the emails sent to their party members so they can fundraise on this particular issue. There will be no amendments to the Firearms Act with Bill C-47.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation this morning. I have to say that I was more concerned about what went unsaid, so I would like him to comment on the U.S. exemption.

What are his thoughts on the fact that Canada will be able to slip things in through the back door that the bill will not allow in through the front door?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has always had a good relationship with the United States. The United States is not a high-risk country. We have a very good relationship with them. I think this treaty will enable Canada to work with the international community. We must take care not to lump the United States in with other high-risk countries. They are two different things. We must not compare apples and oranges.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada already has a responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military equipment that meets or exceeds this UN treaty. Could the member opposite name three areas where he sees that the UN treaty exceeds in any way what we have in our system in Canada?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Arms Trade Treaty was about Canada participating with the international community. I understand that some of the members on the other side are causing some fearmongering with their communities, and with rural communities especially. However, I want to reassure them that this has nothing to do with law-abiding gun owners in Canada. I do not know how many times I can repeat it. We are not amending the Firearms Act. They can repeat it as much as they want on the other side, but I challenge him to show me where Bill C-47 amends the Firearms Act.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is from a rural community not far from Ottawa. I know is proud to represent his rural Franco-Ontarian community.

I also know he did extensive research that shows that this bill will not affect people in his community, as the Conservatives like to repeat over and over again.

Could he explain in French, for his Franco-Ontarian community, how this treaty and Canada have helped make the world a more peaceful place, and confirm that this will not lead to the situation the Conservatives are describing?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is indeed important to emphasize that Bill C-47 will not affect gun owners.

It is also important to note that the Conservatives are once again trying to strike fear into our communities. This is nothing new, and we are used to it. They have been using this tactic for years.

Let me reassure my constituents in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that this will not affect them at all. They will be able to do things just as they have done for the past 15 years.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to an export control system that is rigorous, transparent, and predictable. We believe that regulating the international arms trade is essential for the protection of people and human rights. I am proud to live in a Canada that already has, by international standards, an export control regime that stringently promotes transparency and protects human rights through an assessment process.

Our existing system of export controls already meets or exceeds all but two of the 28 articles in the Arms Trade Treaty. Through this legislation, both to enhance transparency and to fully comply with the treaty, legislative amendments are being proposed to the Export and Import Permits Act and to one section of the Criminal Code.

In my view, Bill C-47 is not merely about formalizing existing practices and making policy tweaks. Rather, acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty is of normative value to Canada. It makes a statement to the world.

During the election campaign, we promised Canadians we would re-engage with the world and contribute to development, mediation, conflict prevention, and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. In the words of our foreign minister, “Peace and prosperity are every person's birthright.” Unregulated arms transfers hinder social and economic development. They intensify regional instability and prolong conflict, and ultimately, they contribute to violations of international humanitarian law and to human rights abuses.

We are once again aligning ourselves with our closest partners and allies in NATO and the G7. We are advancing Canada's engagement in the responsible trade of conventional arms in a manner that reflects our broader international security and development policies. The global Arms Trade Treaty aligns perfectly with Canada's broader international development policies.

The ATT is feminist. It is a vital component of international efforts to reduce gender-based violence, and it supports Canada's international efforts with respect to global health. The Arms Trade Treaty will reduce the risk that the trade of arms at the international level will be used to commit genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Nations that are party to the treaty will be required to establish import and export controls on a variety of weapons, including tanks, missiles, small arms, and light weapons, something Canada already has in place. This will keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and those who seek to do harm to Canada and its allies.

This treaty specifically recognizes the right to use conventional arms for cultural or recreational use and the rights of states to trade in conventional arms for political, commercial, or security purposes. We are the only member of NATO, and the only one of the G7 countries, that has not signed or ratified the ATT. We cannot and will not fail to act.

Given my background as a pharmacist, I am going to examine this treaty through a slightly different lens than many of my colleagues. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and other public health institutions and NGOs have all prioritized the global Arms Trade Treaty as a public health imperative. While health-focused groups may not be what first come to mind when we think of stakeholders focused on global arms, a poorly regulated arms trade fuels conflict, which in turn has devastating effects on global health.

Reducing the poorly regulated control of arms contributes to the prevention of the misuse of arms, reducing deaths and injuries as a result. Moreover, improving arms control allows for states to redirect resources currently spent on arms management, security, and defence toward the development of social services and public infrastructure. Not only will the ATT reduce the direct consequences associated with the illicit arms trade, it will help with a wide variety of secondary challenges associated with the spread of illegal arms.

Conflict spawns a myriad of other problems: health challenges, not just from injuries sustained in combat but from diseases that spring up from the unsanitary conditions that arise in war zones, diseases like cholera, dysentery, and malaria; gender-based violence and rape, which so often become used as weapons of war; and the displacement and destruction of entire communities that are forced to flee for their lives. Children are pulled out of school, losing out on their best chance to get an education. In times of war, children miss their opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. They are robbed of the chance to create a better future for themselves and their communities. These are the issues we are trying to address with this treaty.

I am not naive enough to think that one treaty will magically solve all these problems, but we have an obligation to use every opportunity to take every chance we have to take concrete and meaningful action towards tackling these issues.

Let me remind everyone that this year is the 20th anniversary of the Ottawa Treaty, a landmark international agreement to reduce some of the most devastating weapons of war, weapons that continue to kill and injure people of all ages each and every year.

I would like to take a brief moment to salute the hard work of groups like MAG and the HALO Trust, which work diligently in the field each and every day to finally rid the world of this scourge.

The ATT represents another giant step in the right direction in combatting the use of weapons for illegal and often evil means. The ATT is transformational. The inclusion of civil society in the drafting of this treaty was directly responsible for the content of the treaty and the specific language contained within it. This is the first international treaty that explicitly acknowledges the "social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms”. It is also notable that this treaty lists “reducing human suffering” as its primary goal.

Let me provide a concrete example of what can happen when weapon are in the wrong hands. I am paraphrasing a story told to delegates at the United Nations. A boy in the DRC was shot in the face by diamond thieves. He needed to go to Nairobi to receive treatment, and his successful treatment and rehabilitation came to a total cost of about $6,000 U.S. Had he not been shot, that $6,000 could have paid for one year of primary school education for 100 children. It could have provided full immunization for 250 children. It could have provided a family of six with 10 years' worth of staple meals.

Make no mistake, this is what we are talking about when we are discussing the ATT. This is what we are trying hard to prevent. This is not the time for Canada to remain on the sidelines and let others lead. This is exactly the sort of treaty that speaks to the heart of who we are as Canadians as a people, and I am proud to support this bill.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have Bill C-47 in front of me. The Liberals keep talking about how they are not establishing a new firearms registry, but this is exactly what the bill does, and that is exactly the reason we did not ratify this particular agreement when we were in government. I had a private member's bill that challenged us not to sign on to the ATT because of that requirement to keep records.

Does the hon. member understand that the ATT requires organizations in Canada, such as firearms dealers, to actually retain records for up to seven years? Does he understand that?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that this treaty was signed, with Canada's support, on April 2, 2013. In all 154 countries voted for this treaty. Only three countries voted against it: Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

His party at that time signed and voted for that treaty. My question for the member is this: Was he disingenuous then, or is he disingenuous now?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the topic of disingenuousness, it is easy to speak highly of concepts like human rights, but I notice that adherence to these words often goes out the door when money is involved.

The Liberal government is talking a good line on human rights, but Canadians know that this country has sent $15 billion worth of light armoured carriers to Saudi Arabia, which is using the vehicles against the civilian population in Yemen. The government knows that and the world knows that, and yet the Liberal government has refused to cancel that contract or to do anything about it, even though Canadian law prohibits Canada from selling arms to countries that use those weapons against civilian populations, which is exactly what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen.

Does the hon. member agree with the NDP that the Liberal government should cancel the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia in the clear face of Saudi Arabia's use of those weapons to kill civilians in Yemen?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of confused, because during the election campaign, New Democrats supported the same thing, so I do not know where the question is coming from.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell basically say there's nothing to see here, that we have a system of arms control in place and this doesn't really change anything. Then we heard the member for Kitchener Centre say how this treaty would change the world and save children facing terrible situations around the world. I wonder which of those it is.

The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was right to point out that we already have a strong systems of arms control in place and that, substantively, this would not actually do anything to address some of the situations the member spoke about. What it would do is to create new obligations on firearms owners in Canada, obligations that in no way inform the Arms Trade Treaty. I would be on board for something that actually made a difference, but too often what we hear from the government is its intentions, but not enough about what the actual implications of the legislation would be.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassert something that the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said, which is that this would not affect domestic gun rights or domestic gun production.

Let me quote someone, who said, “this Treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the Treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.” Does anyone know who said that? It was the former secretary of state of the United States, John Kerry. I will take his words over the words of the opposition any day.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty would allow Canada to be part of the first international treaty aimed at tackling the illicit trade in conventional arms. Could the member touch a little more on why it is so important for Canada to address this issue and to be part of a treaty that is so important to the globe?

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, and I will use just one slice of why this treaty is so important.

When we talk about gender-based violence, we know that it occurs mostly in conflict states. What are we trying to do? We are trying to alleviate suffering, poverty, and violence in other parts of the world by acceding to this treaty. Is that such a bad thing? Does that not speak to the nobility of who we are as Canadians in trying to do things to better the lives of other people around the world?

The government's focus is on gender balance, but more specifically, as a member of the foreign affairs committee, I have learned how important it is to make sure that women and girls are included in the peace process in post-conflict states. How can a state survive if there are illegal arms throughout its territory? This is an attempt to make sure that we fulfill not only our international obligations but also the obligations that are morally incumbent upon us as a great, rich, and progressive society.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion since the first round. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be limited to ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-47, a bill that implements an international arms control treaty. It is fascinating listening to the members from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and Kitchener Centre on the government side. We heard so much about the government's intentions. They said that the bill intends to do this and that, and that the government does not intend to cause any problems for law-abiding firearms owners but to address arms control internationally. It lays bare a fundamental difference in the foreign policy approach of the official opposition and the government, which is that the government is always chasing an optic, in general, but especially when it comes to our foreign policy, without looking at the details.

My colleagues on this side of the House have very ably laid out the practical problems with this legislation and the practical reality that we already have a strong system of arms control in this country that achieves the stated objective. The government members barely engaged in a discussion on this point. Instead, we heard them laud their own intentions.

Let me tell the members opposite that on many of these issues, we have the same intentions, but we have read the bill and looked at the treaty and have heard specific concerns from our communities about its substance, especially insofar as we already have a strong system in place.

We oppose the bill on the grounds that it complicates existing arms control mechanisms that are working very well at present, and that in the process, it introduces substantial problems for responsible law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. I want to start by talking about some of those core substantive issues in terms of existing and proposed new arms control measures and then talk specifically about what I am hearing from firearms owners in my riding about the way the government is treating them.

On the substantive side, Canada already has a strong and effective system of arms control that, in practical effect, exceeds the system proposed by the UN treaty. It includes the Trade Controls Bureau, through which the responsible minister prevents us supplying military equipment to countries where those exports might threaten Canadian security or be used in an internal or external conflict in general. I should say that it is supposed to do that depending on the decision the minister makes. It includes provisions that allow a complete ban on trade with high-risk countries. Under the present system, the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect all such information on goods exported from Canada.

Therefore, we are already doing exactly what we need to do and are meeting the objectives laid out by the member for Kitchener Centre. We are already doing those things, keeping weapons from bad actors and out of dangerous situations and, in any event, certainly tracking our exports.

Some might argue that signing on to this UN treaty is important to align Canada with other nations. One of the members opposite mentioned the nations that had initially signed on to it, but if we look at the actual ratification record of countries, we note that the countries accounting for a majority of the sales of military equipment have not signed on to it, so this treaty is not at all establishing an effective international regime that we can align with.

We already do arms control and do it well, so at best, Bill C-47 is a solution in search of a problem. Paradoxically that was the defence of it by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He told us that it is not really changing anything anyway, which is at odds with what the member for Kitchener Centre said. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell told us that it is not changing anything, but the member for Kitchener Centre told us it is going to save the world. It is one or the other. Maybe it is somewhere in-between. Probably, based on our evidence, it is making things worse.

At best, if we take the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell at his word, it is a solution in search of a problem. However, our contention is that it is worse than that, because the treaty fails to recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership and creates all sorts of unnecessary problems and red tape for responsible firearms owners. Most critically, it effectively recreates the federal gun registry by requiring the tracking of all imported and exported firearms and requires that this information be available to the minister for six years. Given that those are calendar years, it could be up to seven years.

Firearms groups and individual owners have repeatedly expressed concern about the implications of this. They want a strong system of arms control, but they point out that in fact we already have one.

Beyond that, firearms owners are generally frustrated by a constantly shifting classification system that does not provide any meaningful certainty to law-abiding gun owners. A gun could be legal today and illegal tomorrow, without even the due process of an order in council.

I also want to make some points in general about the government's approach to firearms owners.

I know that many people in the House have certain ideas about who gun owners are. These presumptions or stereotypes lead the government to dismiss the legitimate concerns and suggestions of people from the firearms owning community. When everything we know about a particular community comes from movies and media, we are perhaps liable to come to incorrect conclusions.

I ask the government to pause and look again and to listen to the many law-abiding firearms owners in this country. Most people who own guns are not like Al Capone or even James Bond. They are scrupulously careful with their firearms and use them for recreation and, perhaps, to hunt responsibly for food.

The responsible use of firearms can be something around which people build community. Just like some of us get together over drinks or to play sports, some Canadians enjoy spending time with their families and friends at the range or out hunting. For some people, guns are also an important part of their family history. In these cases, making it harder for people to possess their guns means we are trying to take away people's valuable family heirlooms.

I ask the government to think about these gun owners, people whom we might not have met but who do not deserve to be judged on the basis of uninformed stereotypes. Liberals, who supposedly champion diversity and openness to experience, should be open to learning about the legitimate aspirations of firearms owners, aspirations that can be effectively and responsibly integrated with a commitment to public safety.

With that in mind, in the remaining time I have, I will read at some length an essay written by one of my constituents who is a firearms owners. He asked that I share this anonymously. He writes the following:

I am the gun owner that is a loving husband and father, I raised great kids and still love my high school sweetheart 27 years later.

I am the gun owner that deplores violence, I respect the police and the law. I fly a Canadian flag in my yard.

I am the gun owner that is a sports coach, a community leader, an involved parent, and the father that booked off work for all those field trips with our kids when others were busy.

I am that gun owner that stopped on that icy highway and brought your wife and child to safety from their stuck car on a cold night....

I am that gun owner that has a successful business, employs people with good jobs and fair wages. I am the gun owner that ensures respect, fairness and proper treatment of people, I speak out against harassment and racism.

I am that gun owner that believes firearms safety and training are paramount to have a successful firearms policy in our country.

I am the gun owner that stores his firearms properly and safely, respects the privilege of owning firearms, and is a respected and committed member of the community, that cares deeply about the safety of your children and mine.

I am the gun owner that lives on your street, down the alley or at the end of the block, I am the one that waves, pushes your car when you are stuck, and my kids and I are the ones that shovelled those neighbors driveways when they needed help, someone passed away or a neighbour fell ill.

I am the gun owner that has firearms for sports shooting and hunting and recreation, my firearms have been passed from generation to generation, my firearms are of all types and many are well over a hundred years old, they have never been used in anger or against another. They are my family history, heirlooms and always used safely and with respect for my family, neighbors and friends. Many belonged to my great-grandfather, grandfather and father....

I am the gun owner who is proud, and enjoys the wonderful people I have met in the firearms community, my dear friends they have become, they are good people worthy of my friendship.

I am the gun owner, that should not be blamed for gang violence, smuggled and stolen firearms, failed public policy not holding criminals responsible for their actions, or drugs in our community. I am responsible for none of these things. But if I was the Public Safety Minister, I would take real action against these plagues on our communities.

I am the gun owner that believes the Government should focus on passing legislation like Wynn's Law, that would make criminal history mandatory at bail hearing's so that if suspects are released into our communities, the Justice releasing them is aware of the risks to our families, our communities and our police officers....

I am the gun owner that requests your support for our heritage sport, target shooting, responsible and ethical hunting practices and acceptance that the two million plus Canadian gun owners are your friends, neighbours and the people who help make caring communities up.

I am the gun owner that recently had his 10/22 magazines status changed to prohibited by this government, effectively making farmers, sports shooters and good Canadians into criminals without notice, without cause or justification. Many who are unaware now face incarceration and don't even know it. If the Liberals are going to turn law abiding citizens into criminals they should at least communicate this to the citizens. I will do my best to let everyone I can know about their actions.

I am the gun owner who will not be silent anymore. I will be politically active, I will speak up, I will endorse the right candidates to speak for my community, I will speak to factual evidence....

I am that Gun Owner.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share that on behalf of my constituents, and to oppose to bill.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing that piece of correspondence from his constituent. I am happy to share the proper reply to that constituent with him, and he is welcome to take it. It would go a lot like this:

The goal of the Arms Trade Treaty—and this is for my friend's constituent—is to ensure the international trade in conventional arms does not contribute to international conflict and instability. Canadians are in favour of that. The treaty is about the import, export, and international brokering of arms. It does not affect domestic gun controls. Nothing in Bill C-47 would affect domestic controls and the lawful and legitimate use of firearms. It would not create a registry of conventional arms.

In fact, record-keeping for the import and export of arms in Canada has existed since the 1940s. It existed under the Conservative government, and the member can explain that to his constituent. Bill C-47 would leave in place the same record-keeping of conventional arms that was used under the previous government. Again, the purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty is not about restricting the legitimate, lawful use of firearms, and that is recognized in the preamble of the treaty itself.

That is a message that my friend can share with his constituent. Does he want to take me up on the offer of sharing that response?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly share the full video and record with my constituent, and he may be contacting that member's office directly with some follow-up thoughts.

However, if I can respond for the time being, the member spoke about the goal of the treaty, and this is exactly the point. With respect to foreign policy, we hear government members repeatedly saying, “our goal”, “our intention”, and “Here is what we are trying to do.” That is all well and good, but we are going to hold them accountable on the basis of what the government is actually doing, not its intentions. Our job is to look at the details and to challenge the government on action, not just on intention. That is what the government will be held accountable for, because that is what affects people on the ground. It is not the intentions of the government that affect people on the ground; it is the actions of the government.

I spoke in my speech about how the changes to the tracking and retention of records are the basis for significant concern from firearms owners and from stakeholders who represent firearms owners. The government would have us believe that they are all wrong to be concerned. However, we are going to listen to the firearms owners community when they highlight the fact that we already have a very strong system of arms control that, in its practical effects, exceeds what is proposed under this treaty, and that this treaty would meaningfully change things that are relevant to their lives.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 would introduce controls on brokering the transfer of arms from one foreign country to another. I know the member has talked about other concerns, but I wonder if he would recognize the importance of this measure to combat the illicit trade in conventional arms and the human rights violations associated with it. Does he agree with that?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I said during my speech that I share the intention of combatting the illicit sale of arms and addressing human rights issues that were raised by this member, the member for Kitchener Centre, and others. However, the reality is that Canada already has an extremely strong system of arms control that, for its practical effects, exceeds what is being proposed under the Arms Trade Treaty.

Again there is this dissonance, in a way, coming from the government. Some government members are saying, “Do not worry; it does not change anything”, while others are saying, “No, this is really important.” Which is it?

We think it would not help in dealing with the international illicit arms trade, because we already have the mechanisms and provisions in place. However, some of the changes we talked about would have an impact with respect to responsible domestic gun owners and the added red tape that would come with this legislation. It is for those reasons that we oppose the bill.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we see the difference between what Liberals understand about the bill and what the reality is on the ground and how it would affect firearms owners in Canada and firearms sellers and exporters in Canada. I would like the member to fully explain so that members fully understand.

They defend some aspects that we agree on. The illicit arms trade is exactly something that we want to get to the bottom of and want to stop. Can you explain for the members across the way why this is really a big deal to our constituents in rural Canada and why another form of registry is a big deal?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Canadians, rural Canadians as well as urban Canadians, had many concerns about the long-gun registry. Some of it was the cost factor. There was a massive cost overrun. There was also the level of suspicion with which firearms owners are continually treated.

That is why I thought it was important in my speech today to emphasize that firearms owners do not look like a lot of the stereotypes. A lot of people who do not know firearms owners, or maybe do not know that they know firearms owners, have ideas that come from media and movies about what guns are used for, without understanding and appreciating the cultural significance, the recreational significance, and the family significance for many people. The long-gun registry and the way the government continues to approach these issues just demonstrate that the Liberals are out of touch with that experience of very many Canadians.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a world where global actors seek global solutions for global crises and where the international community and international law play an indispensable role in creating a safer, more secure, and more stable international order. It is in that spirit that I rise today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code.

The implementation of the obligations contained in the bill before us today represents a firm Liberal campaign commitment and is of great concern to a great many Canadians. Bill C-47 marks a common sense and long-overdue commitment on the part of the Canadian government to fully accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and strengthen Canada's arms export regime.

Our accession, in other words, would, first, create a legal obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to consider certain assessment criteria before issuing an export permit or a brokering permit; second, define brokering activities and establish a framework to control brokering that takes place in Canada or is undertaken by Canadians outside Canada; third, set May 31 as the date by which the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade must table in both Houses of Parliament a report of the operations under the EIPA and a report on military exports in the preceding year; fourth, increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence from $25,000 to $250,000 in order to support enhancement and encourage compliance; fifth, replace the requirement that only countries with which Canada has an intergovernmental arrangement may be added to the automatic firearms country control list with a new requirement that a country may be added to the AFCCL on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs after consultation with the Minister of National Defence; and sixth, add a new purpose for which an article may be added to an export control list: to facilitate the collection of information on goods that have been, are, or are likely to be subject to trade investigations.

The need for a strengthened international arms regime is abundantly clear. Most estimates suggest that there are over 875 million small and light arms in circulation worldwide. This number is roughly equal to the number of cars or tablets on the planet. To appreciate the magnitude of this figure of 875 million, let us consider that this number is twice the number of people who lived under the British Empire in its heyday. To look at it differently, this number represents 252,306 guns for every Tim Hortons in Canada. In the absence of common sense regimes and international co-operation to prevent the spread and proliferation of small and light arms, this number represents an astounding threat to global stability. Armed violence kills approximately 508,000 people every year on a global scale. It is important to emphasize that most of these people are not living in conflict zones.

The Arms Trade Treaty ensures that countries effectively regulate the international trade of arms so that they are not used to support terrorism, international organized crime, gender-based violence, human rights abuses, or violations of international humanitarian law. Several measures within the ATT help address these pressing concerns. Perhaps most significantly, article 6 prohibits states from authorizing the transfer of arms if they possess knowledge that the arms would be used “...in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes....”

In addition, article 7 requires states to examine whether their arms exports regimes “would contribute to or undermine peace and security”.

Quite simply, our government believes that regulating the international arms trade is essential for the protection of people and human rights. It is precisely the type of issue on which Canada was once regarded as a global leader. It is on these types of issues that our government once again seeks to return Canada to a principled and forceful foreign policy based on respect for human rights and international law.

Let us remember that formal negotiation of the ATT began in 2006, arising from a growing concern within the international community regarding the proliferation of small and light arms across the globe. The growing security threat posed by these weapons and the lack of international co-operation on this issue were of grave concern. Unfortunately, as this process unfolded, Canada largely remained on the sidelines. As of this spring, 91 states had both signed and ratified the treaty. It is important to highlight that Canada remains the only NATO ally and G7 nation that has not signed or ratified the Arms Trade Treaty.

The bill before us today will rectify this. Bill C-47 would bring Canada into full compliance with the ATT and set global standards into Canadian law.

Acceding to the treaty is not just about Canada's arms trade regime; it is also about Canada setting a principled standard and embracing the need for coordinated global action.

The regulations before us were developed in a transparent, deliberate, and comprehensive fashion. More importantly, our government is matching words with actions. Budget 2017 allocated $13 million over five years to allow Canada to implement the Arms Trade Treaty and to further strengthen Canada's export control regime. Moreover, we are also contributing $1 million to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation to ensure that we assist other countries in acceding to this treaty.

We are doing this because our government understands that as global security threats become increasingly diverse, dispersed, interconnected, and interdependent, Canada cannot afford to sit idle or to go it alone. We should never neglect our international responsibilities for reasons of domestic pandering or narrow-minded ideology. Canada has a moral obligation to accede to the ATT, and I am proud that our government has taken these concrete steps.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently, and there has been more than a little misinformation coming from the other side. The Liberals are saying that all NATO allies have signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty. The United States, our closest ally and a NATO member, has not signed the ATT. Therefore, will the member correct the record and ensure that Canadians understand that the United States, Russia, China, Israel, and North Korea have not signed it? This utopian view of the Liberals that signing this treaty will magically clean up the illicit trade of defensive weapons and firearms around the world is nothing but a sham to get their backdoor gun registry in place and delegitimize all lawful owners of firearms here in Canada

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of listening to the debate on this issue this morning. I have to say that if there is anyone who should rectify the record, it is my good friend across the aisle.

There is no doubt that there is an international consensus on this issue. There is no doubt that our allies to the south have signed on to this treaty. This treaty represents international consensus on a very significant issue. However, my friends opposite are choosing to mislead Canadians and use this issue for short-term fundraising objectives. That, I submit, is absolutely the wrong way to approach this very significant issue.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I note the individual said over and over again international consensus. We are aware and very sure of the fact the U.S. has not signed-on to this agreement, nor Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. These are very significant players, when we are talking about international arms.

I would like the member to again take this opportunity to stand up, and basically correct the record, that the U.S. and these other countries that are not our allies, and I would probably use another word for them, are not part of this treaty and therefore, its significance is minimal.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to correct the record. The reality of the matter is that this particular treaty represents an international consensus. For the record, every country actually agreed to the terms of this treaty. The three countries that did not represent the mainstream support of this particular bill were Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea.

The member should know that even the previous government did support the principles contained in this agreement. Therefore, why, all of a sudden, is the member trying to pretend that this would not do good or enhance global co-operation to deal with a very significant issue? It is truly mind-boggling.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, apropos the last exchange we just heard, I would like to remind members of the House that one of the treaties Canada can be most proud, for which the organizers won a Nobel Peace Prize, was the Ottawa Treaty to ban land mines.

We are now approaching the 30th anniversary of that treaty, which has saved tens of thousands of lives around the world. It has been a very effective treaty. However, to this day, Russia, China, India, and the United States are not parties to it, but the clearing of land mines, the prohibition on their trade, has been effective in countries around the world beyond those that have actually signed the treaty.

It is true that President Obama signed the Arms Trade Treaty, and that President Trump shows no intention of ratifying it. However, fixing the loophole that would allow conventional arms to be sold through the United States without tracking them, and potentially going to other countries in violation of the treaty needs to be fixed. I will put to my friend on the other side that Canada's role in ratifying is an important step in saving lives around the world.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for once again speaking out much more eloquently on this issue then I could ever do. Yes, as the member is aware, but other members are not, there is a distinction between signing and ratifying.

For the members of the loyal opposition to pretend that the U.S. has not signed the treaty would simply add more confusion to this issue and mislead Canadians. Therefore, I would ask them to correct the record, and inform Canadians that it has been signed by the U.S.A.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand here today to talk about this important issue.

For the record, the U.S. signed the treaty on September 25, 2013, and Israel signed the treaty on December 18, 2014. During the member's speech, he said they signed the treaty. He did not say they ratified the treaty.

I thank the House for giving me the chance to address this very important issue. I hope all members of the House share the interest of all Canadians in maintaining high standards for peace, security, and human rights.

Canada's export control regime is one of the strictest in the world. In fact, it is very much in line with the four export control and non-proliferation regimes enforced by our main allies and security partners.

These regimes include the Wassenaar Arrangement, under which member states work together to prevent the destabilizing buildup of conventional arms; the Missile Technology Control Regime, which aims to prevent the proliferation of missile technology for delivery of weapons of mass destruction; the Australia Group, whose members seek to control the spread of chemical and biological weapons; and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which aims to regulate any materials, equipment, and technologies that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Canada's export controls and our adherence to export control regimes are based on the long-recognized need to regulate the arms trade in order to assess risk and prevent illicit trade. That is one of the objectives of the Arms Trade Treaty, the ATT. The treaty seeks to minimize the humanitarian impact of the global arms trade, and to establish and globalize higher standards for the global trade in conventional arms.

The ATT seeks to ensure that all states have effective national systems to scrutinize and control the conventional arms trade and to promote transparency measures in order to combat the illicit arms trade. These measures in turn promote accountability and transparency in legitimate arms transactions. To be effective, the ATT needs leadership. Canada has taken too long to join the treaty.

The bill before the House provides Canada the opportunity to resume its place as a world leader in export controls. This bill demonstrates our commitment to join the ATT and our desire to further enhance our already tough export controls. We will not only meet the treaty's high standards, but also help implement them.

That is why our government intends to further enhance the rigour and transparency of these export controls as part of Canada's accession to the ATT. The bill introduced in the House would make the legislative changes needed to comply with the obligations yet to be met. The proposed amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act will ensure that Canada fully complies with two articles of the treaty where we fall short.

We propose to amend section 7 by applying specific codes to the criteria used by Canada to assess permit applications, and to amend section 10 on brokering by creating new brokering controls. Brokering controls are an extension of export controls because they allow a country to expand the scope of its regulatory control of arms transfers between third states, whether the transfer is facilitated by measures taken in Canada or abroad.

Canada is committed to acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty would allow Canada to participate in a broader multilateral effort that would create common international standards for the export of conventional weapons.

The implementation of this multilateral treaty by Canada and other state parties would reduce the irresponsible flow of weapons that contribute to terrorism, transactional organized crime, and violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law. It would also provide women and children, often victims of conflict, with greater protection, and the opportunity to live in a more stable, peaceful environment.

Accession would allow Canada, amongst other things, to participate fully in ATT meetings of state parties, and enable our government to be more effective in its push for more transparency and accountability in the global arms trade both in Canada and worldwide. These goals are consistent with our values and policy objectives, aimed at reducing conflict and instability, protecting human rights, and countering terrorism.

Our accession to the ATT would complement Canada's broader engagement on responsible trade of conventional arms. Canada has long been at the forefront of promoting expert controls to reduce the illicit trafficking of weapons, particularly in regard to their negative effects on human rights. Expert controls are also aimed at balancing the economic and commercial interests of Canadian businesses with the national interests of Canada. Such controls are intended to permit legitimate trade where appropriate.

The ATT requires member states to assess all potential exports, but it also allows the use of expedited procedures for low-risk countries. In fact, many ATT states already use expedited processes for countries that they assess to be low risk. This allows countries to focus their resources on the highest risk activities, namely those activities that are the most serious threats to peace and security.

Our government would ensure that comprehensive assessments are conducted for all export destinations according to the criteria set out in the ATT.

The defence and security interests of the United States and Canada have been intertwined and integrated for the better part of the last century. Our countries share common ideas, and we also share an understanding about the risks of irresponsible arms diversion.

Exports to the U.S. are also important in the context of international defence, and supporting the North American industrial defence base. According to the most recently available trade data, Canada's defence and security sector employed close to 63,000 skilled workers, and contributed $6.7 billion to Canada's GDP in 2014.

The reach of Canada's defence and security industry is national, with clusters of expertise in communities from coast to coast, and comprises some 640 small and medium-size enterprises, as well as a number of larger anchor firms.

Many of these firms are integrated with companies in the U.S. Innovation generated by the defence and security industry has spillover effects in a multitude of commercial and civil applications, helping sustain SMEs in high-tech sectors ranging from aerospace to innovative materials, to information and communications technologies.

We are convinced that continuing permit-free export of most military and strategic goods and technologies to the United States would support Canadian interests for the reasons I mentioned. In addition, it would also allow us to make the most efficient use of Global Affairs Canada resources, and to focus our attention on the highest risk destinations and transactions.

To conclude, we must reaffirm our commitment to be global leaders in addressing the consequences of illegal or irresponsible arms trade, whether it be as a national example of strong and effective export and brokering controls, as key participant members in the various export control and non-proliferation regimes, or as leaders in the globalization of the Arms Trade Treaty.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute and commend my colleague for his eloquent speech. Not to get too emotional, but we were all very pleased and moved by yesterday's events and the inauguration of the national Holocaust monument. All partisanship aside, I am sure the member feels the same way about what happened yesterday.

I would particularly like to recognize the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for highlighting the inauguration by starting yesterday's question period with this theme that brings all fair-minded Canadians together.

The member's remarks are interesting, but it is also important to understand that this is a crucial issue. In the bill we have before us, seeking to support the UN treaty, there is a major distinction between the weapons used by terrorists and criminals to kill people, and the kind of firearms used by hunters, gun collectors, and ordinary people who have always thought of guns as a part of life, as they were for their fathers, their grandfathers, their great-grandparents, and their great-great-grandparents. Guns are just a part of life for Canadians. For millions of Canadians, a gun is anything but a weapon of destruction.

Does the member recognize that a distinction must be made and that, unfortunately, the UN treaty, as it now stands, does not do that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments regarding yesterday's events. I find it very gratifying that everyone in the House—the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the New Democrats—united to recognize the importance not only of the national Holocaust monument, but also of teaching our young people that such a thing must never happen again in Canada or elsewhere.

With regard to the treaty, I completely agree with him that nothing in the treaty should prevent us from controlling domestic firearms here in Canada. I would like to remind him that the treaty states:

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system....

That means that the treaty recognizes that Canada has the right to control arms within the country to ensure that hunters and all those who want to legally own firearms in Canada have the right to do so.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying the same thing that my Conservative colleague said to my hon. friend from Mount Royal, that yesterday was a historic day with the Holocaust memorial and needs to be recognized as such by all Canadians.

New Democrats agree with the member's general position on this bill, but I wonder whether he shares our concern that Canada's exports of military goods to the United States appear to be exempt from regulation and would continue to be so under this bill. Would he agree with me, notwithstanding his point about the interrelationship of our trade with the United States and its importance to our economy, that as Canadians we should stand up and ensure that the Americans are also subject to the rigours of this bill?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. colleague from Victoria for his consistent support for Canada's Jewish community. I know it is very close to his heart. The first Jewish Canadian elected in the House of Commons was from Victoria in 1871, so he sits in a very historic seat.

I do not necessarily agree with my hon. colleague from Victoria on this issue. I personally believe that the relationship between Canada and the United States is unique and that at this point in time, we have nothing to question in terms of our shipments to the United States. Right now, the United States is our biggest trading partner and closest ally in the world and our economies are so closely integrated that I think we would be diverting Global Affairs Canada's attention were we to monitor shipments to the United States, which are happening on a continual basis, minute by minute, as opposed to paying real attention to countries that we should be paying attention to, like Saudi Arabia, on which I may very well agree with my hon. colleague.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-47 and to express my displeasure at this legislation by the government. First, as the shadow minister for defence, I want to assure Canadians that the current system we have in place to manage the export of military equipment from Canada is robust and safe.

The programs here have so many layers of government oversight and the involvement of government agencies that we can be assured that military equipment is not going into the wrong hands, that it is not a part of the illegal trade in firearms, and that it is being used in a way that is consistent with Canadian values.

What we really have to look at here is that Bill C-47, and the ATT it would allow Canada to accede to, is all about bringing in place a backdoor gun registry into Canada. It would disadvantage Canadian manufacturers of firearms and military defence equipment, and we are incredibly concerned that this is just another attack on legitimate long-gun owners across Canada.

To go back to the assurances we have about the system in place today, I remind members that under Global Affairs Canada, we have the automatic firearms country control list and that only countries approved by the Government of Canada and that are on that list are allowed to buy military defensive weapons, including firearms and automatic weapons, from Canada. However, that does not guarantee that Canadian companies will be able to export firearms and military equipment to those nations. Once a country is on the list and approved by Global Affairs Canada, then we go through a process. When the business deal is signed and a purchase decision is made and a Canadian company wants to export the arms, it has to apply for an export permit under the Import and Export Permits Act through Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada again has the ability to say yes or no to the sale of that equipment. Conditions may change in the country that it is being sold to, or the military of that country may be under observation or have been removed from the list, as can happen.

Countries can be banned, as has happened in the past. We have taken Myanmar off the list. North Korea is definitely not on the list; it has been banned. Right now, for example, we on the Conservative side would like to see Ukraine placed on the list. The government is looking at that, but Ukraine is not yet on the country control list.

In Manitoba we have a number of companies that build various types of equipment that have to fall under the government oversight list that is in place. In Winnipeg we have PGW Defence Technologies on the list. It builds firearms, automatic weapons, and sniper rifles and exports them around the world. Before it can send them, it has to get an export permit.

Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg builds all sorts of different components for the aerospace industry, but it is also building pieces of the F-35. We have to remember that even though the United States is somewhat exempt from Bill C-47, Magellan is part of a global supply chain for the entire F-35 program, which includes countries from other consortium members around the world. This Arms Trade Treaty could actually disrupt the flow of these parts that are so timely to the manufacture of the F-35 stealth fighter jet.

In my riding, there is also a company called MicroPilot, which builds autopilots for automated aerial vehicles and also builds micro aerial vehicles. Even though it builds them for nonmilitary use and its customers are not military clients, it still has go through the same process to ensure that its clients will not put the autopilots into drones for military purposes.

Therefore, the oversight by Global Affairs Canada of export permits, and the oversight by the Government of Canada of who will actually be allowed on the automatic firearms country control list is robust and strong, and guarantees that Canada is dealing with legitimate partners and allies.

All that the ATT will do is to disadvantage Canadian companies versus other nations that are not part of it, including the United States. The United States supports the treaty in principle but has not ratified it, and because it has not ratified the treaty it plays by a different set of rules in its export regime than Canada does. We have a healthy defence manufacturing industry, aerospace industry, and manufacturing sector right across this country and those companies will be at a disadvantage because of this so-called treaty.

As I said in an earlier question for the Liberals, they have a utopian view. They think that by signing this treaty we will magically change the way the world operates in the illegitimate firearms trade and the illegitimate, criminal use of weapons. Treaties are only paper thin and as long as major manufacturing is done by countries that are not a part of this and that have no problem selling to regimes and untrusted partners around the world, like Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China, there will never be a way to control their trade in weapons to terrorist organizations. There will never be a way to control their trade in weapons to regimes that are not trusted right now, like North Korea, that wants to bomb the United States with its new intercontinental ballistic missiles.

We have to take care of our own defensive needs. There is one thing that this treaty does that a lot of people do not realize. Under Bill C-47, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are currently exempt from these types of programs. If the Government of Canada wants to donate military equipment to a partner or an ally it can, but under Bill C-47 it will now be tied up by article 5 of the UN ATT.

We already have all sorts of oversight. In addition to Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada already keep track of all movement of firearms and military equipment through the World Customs Organization. Canada has the ability to impose blanket bans on the export of our weapons to countries or regions where we believe firearms or weapons will be used in defensive means or against civilian populations. That is why in the past we put Belarus and Myanmar on the list.

This is a back door long-gun registry. I have spent 17 years of my life as a politician fighting against a long-gun registry. We have legitimate trade in hunting and sports shooting firearms. Manufacturers are concerned that they have not been consulted. Firearms owners across this country, who already have to be licensed under the possession and acquisition licensing program, have not been consulted. They are legitimate, lawful, law-abiding firearms owners and yet the Liberals are plowing ahead anyway to bring in this back door registry.

Manufacturers are saying that what is required under the UN treaty is a different marking than what they already have. This would be an added cost. If a U.S. manufacturer of a firearm wants to send a shotgun to Canada, it would have to laser imprint a new serial number. This would be an extra cost. Who is going to pay for that? It will be Canadian firearms owners, our Canadian customers. What happens if the United States or that company decides they are not going to export to Canada anymore? We will have less choice in what firearms we can purchase.

Article 5 in the treaty states, “Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.” That sounds like a gun registry to me. It goes on to say, “Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control route list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other State Parties.” Now we will have to submit it to the UN. We are going to have to share with every country that signed the treaty exactly how many firearms we have in our country, as registered now through the Liberals' new long-gun registry. State parties are encouraged to make their control list publicly available as well. We just created a shopping list for all of the criminals out there.

I like what the Canadian Shooting Sports Association said:

Canada, under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, requested that civilian firearms specifically be removed from the treaty in order to protect the interests of Canada’s lawful firearms community. The UN ignored our nation’s request to respect the interests of Canadians and refused to remove civilian firearms from the language of the treaty. So the Harper government did what was right: it stood up for Canadian sovereignty and Canadian gun owners and refused to sign the treaty.

The Liberals have not implemented that. They talk about the preamble that says that civilian firearms ownership will be respected. As legislators, we all know preambles are not law; it is the regulations underneath them that are enforceable.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the comments my colleague made. It saddens me to do that because we have worked so well together on other pieces of legislation. I think of bill S-226, and I know through that work that he understands the important role Canada has to play in the world in upholding human rights and the rule of law and holding people to account on some of the bad things that happen in the world. I would think he would agree it is important that we properly play a leading role in regulating the trade of arms that get into conflict areas and have severe negative effects, most often on women and girls. I am sure he would support that.

Let me also provide him the opportunity to correct the record and admit that what this bill would do is, in fact, keep in place the exact same record-keeping regime of conventional arms that was in place under the Stephen Harper government, of which he was a member, a parliamentary secretary if my memory recalls correctly. I do not know what he is talking about in the creation of some new long-gun registry. It is completely non-factual, and he knows this. He was in a government that allowed for the exact same regime we are talking about through this Arms Trade Treaty.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if he had asked any law-abiding firearms owners, he would know that we removed the long-gun registry. They applauded us for getting rid of the long-gun registry. They see exactly what the Liberals are doing here as a backdoor gun registry.

Firearms companies and the stores that sell firearms keep track of, for their internal purposes, the movement of the sale of guns and parts because of warranty issues. However, under this system, those companies would now be compelled to report under the UN Arms Trade Treaty. If they do not, there are fines and penalties in place. The bill is very clear about a fine that should not exceed $250,000, imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both if the business fails to document and report.

We were never draconian in trying to make companies share their personal and private information with the Government of Canada, but the Liberals have no problem forcing them to do it through law.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to return to an issue that is really on most Canadians' minds when it comes to thinking of Canada's foreign policy and our arms export policy, and of course that is the fact that the government is sending billions of dollars of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia when we know it is using that equipment in an offensive fashion against civilians in Yemen.

Earlier there was a facile response by a Liberal MP that the NDP supported it since 2015. What nobody knew in 2015 was that Saudi Arabia was using that equipment in an offensive fashion against civilians. We know that today, in 2017, yet the Liberal government continues to say nothing about those arms exports or do anything about it.

Of course we want to see controls on arms and the export of arms, and the purpose of that is to make sure innocent people are not killed by those arms. How does my hon. colleague square his speech today with the fact that he is part of a government that is, as we speak, allowing the sale of arms to a country that is using them to kill innocent civilians in Yemen?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the ATT would not address the concern that the NDP member just raised. In fact, the current system we have in place is still the best system for the Government of Canada to make decisions on which countries are allowed to buy military equipment from Canada, or any other automatic firearms, for that matter. This speaks to the larger issue that treaties are only paper-thin and will not stop a country or any client that Canada may have in the future from doing things that we do not agree with. As the member pointed out, in 2015 members supported this deal because it created jobs in London, Toronto, and elsewhere, and those jobs and the stimulation of the economy are important.

As long as we have situations where terrorist organizations are running rampant across different countries, it is hard to predict how governments will use military or police equipment in a way that may not always line up with Canadian values at that time. However, we have to continue to trust the government to use the current mechanisms that we have, to ensure that we are doing trade deals and selling defensive weapons and military equipment to our allies and partners where they are needed.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer what I would perhaps call tepid support for Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and to permit the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Unfortunately, while this is a very serious matter, the bill seems to be more of an empty shell than an effective piece of legislation at this stage. Yet again, the Liberals have been extolling the virtue of transparency while completely ignoring the principle in practice.

Members will recall from earlier this week another bill allegedly relating to transparency, the amendments to Bill C-58 that would reform the Access to Information Act. Members stood and pointed out the difference between the rhetoric of transparency and the reality. Today, I note with sadness that our Information Commissioner has done a thorough analysis of the bill, and the title says it all: “Failing to Strike the Right Balance”. That could be the title of this bill as well.

Quite recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed:

The goal is to ensure that all states take responsibility and rigorously assess arms exports. States must also regulate the legal arms trade and use transparent measures to combat illicit trade.

The bill is filled with non-information, significant room for intentionally omitted information, and promises to outline regulations at some later date, following royal assent. That is why we call it an empty shell. Most of the key issues to be addressed will not be addressed in this Parliament and will not be open to parliamentary scrutiny during this debate on second reading. Rather, they will be put in somehow later when regulations are made by faceless bureaucrats behind the scenes. That is why we say the bill fails on the issue of transparency. For example, the key criteria of assessment of arms permits are nowhere to be found in Bill C-47. How can we know if export controls will be strengthened in order to protect future exports to states that abuse human rights? Who knows?

I said at the outset that I am prepared to offer unenthusiastic support so we can get this to committee and make it better. We are asked to consider an appropriate course for the regulation of arms exports in Canada and our country's long-overdue accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. Shamefully, the Harper Conservatives refused to join the Arms Trade Treaty, which was open for accession as of December 2014. Canada emerged as the only NATO member and the only G7 member not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty. I congratulate the government for finally taking these halting steps to join the rest of the civilized world.

We are also forced to examine in this debate who we want to be on the world stage and what kind of values we are really honouring, not just on paper but in our policies and practices. We have a prime minister who loves to talk the talk. During the course of the debates and amendments at committee, we will see whether he and the government are prepared to walk the walk.

It is unthinkable and frankly surprising to many of us that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. After 10 years of the Conservative government, Canada has shifted away from exporting arms predominantly to NATO countries, to exporting arms to countries with notoriously troubling human rights records. For example, according to the defence industry publication Jane's, Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. Arms sales to China, a country with a notoriously poor human rights record, soared to $48 million in 2015. As well, a recent article published in the magazine L'actualité found that in the past 25 years Canada has sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with deeply questionable human rights records. This is not a small problem. Human rights violations cannot be tolerated, let alone facilitated.

With all this in mind, I want to commend the current government for finally agreeing to accede to this international treaty. In endorsing this bill, I want to also salute my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who has done some wonderful work on this issue over the years.

As noted, the bill fails to strengthen export controls, and as written, we would have no idea whether future arms deals with countries that abuse human rights would be prohibited. We have a right to know who Canada is doing business with and under what conditions. When it comes to human rights, it is not enough for us to say one thing and implement policies that allow another.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking to the accession of the Arms Trade Treaty, said, “this legislation will set our standards in law.... I am very pleased that we will in turn raise the bar with a stronger and more rigorous system for our country.”

Forgive me if I am not prepared to take the government's word for it. I agree that we need to set out standards in law, but the bill is proof that the Liberals are still demonstrating a lack of transparency about arms exports and a reluctance to address the disparity between talk and action.

As others have mentioned, there are ongoing allegations of Canadian weapons being used to commit human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. It was reported in The Globe and Mail earlier this year that the Saudi military appears to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles against Saudi citizens. What are we doing about that? We are not doing very much. Reports indicate that Canadian-made weaponry has been used in the Saudi Arabia-led war in Yemen, one of the world's worst humanitarian situations, which continues to deteriorate, and 6,000 people to date have been killed.

In 2015, the Prime Minister told the media that Canada must “stop arms sales to regimes that flout democracy, such as Saudi Arabia.” That is great rhetoric. Where is the action?

The NDP has called for the Liberals to suspend existing export permits for the light armoured vehicle deal with Saudi Arabia, pending an investigation into its domestic human rights situation, to no avail.

In the bill, the majority of Canada's military exports would remain unregulated. It would set up a legal obligation to report on military exports, which is a good step, but here is the punchline. This obligation would only apply to exports where an export permit was required, so most U.S.-bound exports would be exempt from the bill. Neither the act nor its amendment under Bill C-47 would address the Canada-U.S. Defence Production Sharing Agreement, which exempts Canadian military exports to the United States from the government authorization required for other arms exports. Therefore, we will be asking in committee that exports of military goods to the United States be licensed in some fashion.

It has been said that the United States is our closest friend and ally, but with a regime change occurring south of the border, it seems to me that this reflects an outdated way of thinking. It should be subject to the same rules as other countries. Indeed, the reason for that is that sometimes Canadian arms are sold to the United States and are used to commit human rights atrocities, an example of which was published, with respect to Nigeria, on September 13 of this year. We think that is important.

We believe there have been some positive moves on the issue of diversion, and we salute the government for that, but we believe that Canada must formalize diversion as a criterion in our export control systems.

It is a good start that Bill C-47 requires annual reports to Parliament, but the job is only half done as long as it does not include exports to the United States. How can Parliament hold the government to account if the bulk of our exports are excluded from the export permit system and from the resulting annual reporting?

We would suggest, as we have said for many years, that there be a new standing committee to oversee arms exports. The Liberals voted that down. We asked them to consider the U.K. experience and see if we could get on board for that so we could actually provide parliamentary oversight, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the bill.

For far too long Canadians have had too little information about our arms exports to countries with troubling human rights records. Any measures taken that fall short of ensuring the highest standards of accountability are doing a disservice to Canadians and to the vulnerable people who are affected by our policies.

Human rights are not optional. It is not enough for our Prime Minister to go on the international stage and talk the talk. It is now time to walk the talk and give parliamentarians and Canadians the tools they need to ensure that we are doing our part on arms trade exports around the world.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member properly quoting me. I was misquoted by the Conservative opposition a number of times on Thursday. I appreciate the member quoting me properly.

The member started by providing tepid support for this bill. Allow me to warm the water a little by assuring him that, in fact, the regulations that will implement the criteria will be public. I wonder if the member was aware of that. The regulations will indeed go through a process of public consultation, like all regulations, and they will be subject to review by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

As I said, regulations are developed in a transparent, deliberate, and comprehensive manner. Placing the criteria in regulations allows the government to update them in an expeditious manner. For example, after September 11, 2001, there was a strong a desire to provide the minister of foreign affairs with security considerations, but because there was no existing mechanism to do so in the regulations, a legislative change was required, and it took four years to become law.

We believe that this process is robust, rigorous, and transparent. With the information I have provided my colleague across the way, will he take that tepid support and perhaps warm up a little to this bill?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I managed to quote the parliamentary secretary properly today.

There are very few regulations in the Canadian legal system that are not made public. There are a few, of course, involving national security, that are notorious, but they are the exception to the rule. Of course we understand that regulations will be ultimately made public. Our point is that they will be made by faceless bureaucrats without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. Regulations are not made by parliamentarians, with Canadians watching. They are made by the government. We do not get a chance to assess the merits of them.

As for the fact that all regulations are subject to scrutiny by the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, that committee's mandate is to deal with the legality of those regulations, not the merit of those regulations. That does not make me feel any more warmly disposed to this bill than before.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, much of this debate has been dominated by the non-issue of the potential of any impact on legal gun owners within Canada.

I wonder if the member for Victoria would like to put on the record any analysis of the treaty itself, particularly article 3, which makes it very clear that the treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms that stay within the country in which they are directed. There are many other sections that make it clear that the treaty itself, as anyone who is sensible would understand, is entirely about the export of military conventional arms to other countries. It is not about domestic regulations or even about information requirements around domestic use for recreational hunting, or long guns, or guns of any kind used domestically.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and of course I agree with her. I think many Canadians watching this debate and hearing the participation by the Conservatives were wondering whether they had tuned into the wrong channel.

Article 3, as the member points is, makes it clear that this is not about domestic munitions and ammunition at all. Much of the debate was, frankly, scurrilous and irrelevant.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. I was paying close attention.

The Conservatives and the Liberals sometimes tell us that we already have a very robust system for controlling the export of arms, but some aspects of that system are governed more by policy and regulations, rather than by the law itself.

Although the government is saying that we must not export arms to countries where human rights are being violated unless we are sure they will not be used against civilians, this strategy, in practice, is not very sound, since we are exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Is my colleague not worried that the same thing could happen with the regulations that would be passed since the bill itself is virtually hollow?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to not only thank my colleague for her intervention but for her excellent work on behalf of the NDP in the review of this difficult legislation.

I found out that Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and China are among the top 10 destinations for Canada's military goods. We must do better. The regulations may say things the New Democrats would support; they may not. The fact is that the government has chosen to bypass Parliament, and that is not good enough.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to talk about Bill C-47, which should, in theory, have the unanimous support of the House.

Everyone in the House will support Canada ratifying the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, which would be very useful.

Take article 6.3, for example:

A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms...if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party.

Under this treaty, no country is supposed to sell arms to countries that direct attacks against civilians. I am sure some people are wondering what an arm is, exactly.

The treaty that Canada is planning to ratify clarifies that in article 2.1:

This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

(a) Battle tanks;

(b) Armoured combat vehicles;

(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;

Cynicism is a perfectly natural response here. What is the point of ratifying a treaty if a country does not respect either the letter or the spirit of that treaty?

Canada sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, and yet the government has known for years that the Wahhabi Kingdom does not respect human rights. It has known for years that Saudi civilians are constantly under attacks by the army, but money talks.

We forget about human rights when billions of dollars are at stake in Canada's great liberal democracy. Two years ago, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion believed that maintaining a strong trade relationship was the best way to influence a country that violates the rights of its citizens.

At least two years ago, when Minister Dion saw Saudi Arabia attacking its civilians, he acknowledged that selling light armoured vehicles to Riyadh was a calculated risk. However, he insisted that the armed vehicles appearing on screen at the time were not Canadian. He stated that there was no proof that any military equipment that Canada had been selling to Saudi Arabia since 1993 had been misused.

Yes, the Saudis are firing on their own people. Yes, we are selling them weapons, but for the Liberals, there is no connection between the two. However, the Arms Trade Treaty, that the Liberals want to ratify, clearly states that a country that is part of the treaty shall not sell any arms to another country if they know, at the time of authorization, that these arms or items would be used to carry out attacks on civilians. It doesn't say “are being used“, but “would be used”.

Two years ago, Canada was the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East, right behind the United States. Is that really the Liberals' vision for Canada? Everyone gets along, everything is fine and dandy, but we still sell weapons to a country that decapitates, whips and stones its own people.

On page 18 of the latest annual report to Parliament on the administration of the Export and Import Permits Act, we can read:

With respect to military goods and technology, Canadian export control policy has, for many years, been restrictive. Under present policy guidelines set out by Cabinet in 1986, Canada closely controls the export of military items to: countries which pose a threat to Canada and its allies; countries involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities; countries under United Nations Security Council sanctions; or countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.

We know that Saudi Arabia uses Canadian arms against the civilian population. The July 22 Globe and Mail article proved it. We saw the videos of the Canadian Gurkhas, the Minister of Foreign Affairs saw them, and the Prime Minister saw them. Has Canada put a stop to the sale of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia as required by the guidelines? No.

The government is not obeying its own laws and now wants to ratify a treaty that it is already contravening. Bill C-47 may enjoy unanimous support, but the Liberal Party and every other party that voted in favour of the deal between the arms manufacturer and Saudi Arabia in 2015 was being hypocritical.

We know that Canada is partly responsible every time a civilian is killed by the Saudi government. When civilians are threatened, terrorized or brutalized, Canada will find solace in the money pouring into its coffers. In July, the minister stated that she was very concerned about the use of Canadian-made arms by the Saudi army against civilians and asked her officials to look into it immediately. This is my interpretation of what she said: if it were proven that Canadian exports were used to commit serious human rights violations, I would take action. Two months later nothing has been done.

We support the principles of this bill, but we think its application is even more important. There is no point in passing legislation and then not enforcing it. There is no point in ratifying a treaty and then not complying with it. In 1976, Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which authorizes each signatory country to be a watchdog over the other signatory countries. Article 1 of the covenant states:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

This is precisely what Madrid is denying the Catalan people. The Spanish government is denying the Catalan people not only their right to self-determination, but also their democratic right to vote on it.

Article 41 of the same covenant adds that if a state party to the covenant believes that another state party is not applying its provisions, it can draw that state party's attention to the matter in writing. The Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that the referendum in Catalonia falls under Spanish domestic affairs and that Canada should stay out of it, but what exactly is a domestic affair?

Canada ratified a covenant that invites signatory countries to keep an eye on one another to ensure that civil and political rights are respected. Now Ottawa is turning a blind eye, as though its signature meant nothing, as though the covenant were optional. My fear is that this Liberal government, despite having signed the Arms Trade Treaty, proves once again that its international commitments and its word are not worth much. The Liberals always put economic considerations ahead of human rights. That is the way it is.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just on a point of order, the hon. member has 10 minutes and it is not about sharing. It will be passed on to the next person, so it is not a problem. The member may continue for 10 minutes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-47. This bill is part of the Liberals' election promise to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the ATT, which has been debated in the UN, brought forward, and signed by some countries.

It is significant to note that some major countries, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, have not signed-on. The United States has not ratified and will not likely ratify this treaty. Like many ineffective international treaties, many key participants in the trade are not part of this treaty.

The Conservatives have always supported efforts to establish international standards that help to prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflict and encourage terrorism or organized crime. In actuality, Canada already has a responsible internal system to monitor, and control the export of military and security equipment that meets or exceeds the UN treaty. In other words, the ATT is actually inferior when compared with what Canada already has in place, and has been implementing effectively since the 1940s.

First, we have the Trade Controls Bureau, a department of our own sovereign government that is empowered to make sure the military equipment sales, issues related to security, cryptological equipment, and nuclear and biological risks are not only governed and tracked but controlled.

The Trade Controls Bureau, here in Ottawa not in New York, has been empowered and serving Canadian parliaments, regardless of which political party is in power, for decades. We already specifically name, from a Canadian point of view, items for export that need to be tracked and controlled under the Export and Import Permits Act, which the Trade Controls Bureau is charged to monitor.

Specifically, military or strategic dual-use goods; that is, some goods that can be used for a military or civilian purpose are specifically tracked. Also tracked are nuclear-energy materials and technology, missile-related technology, chemical and biological goods, cryptological equipment, and code breaking, the latter being so important to national security with the onset of the Internet.

Canada is a world leader in this technology, and our government was sensitive and responsible in controlling and, in many cases, restricting export of these technologies. An area of great concern to Canadians is that the current government has a willingness to see this type of asset sold to China without proper oversight. I have no confidence that Bill C-47 would in any way change the government's turning of a blind eye to the concerns from Canadians in this area.

It is also important to note that our existing system is superior to the UN treaty in the tracking of these goods, equipment and materials, and technologies by the Canada Border Services Agency and by Statistics Canada, using World Customs Organization tracking figures, and not just our own reference points.

We already track and limit the trade in these items far more than what the UN Arms Trade Treaty does. Why would we choose to sign-on to an agreement that is inferior to what we already have in place. Canada is already ahead of the curve and, doing so, leading as a sovereign nation on the world stage. Under the Export and Import Permits Act, through an order in council, Canada can limit sales of anything to another country. Canada can ban a country. As an example, North Korea is currently banned entirely through this area control list. The government already has within its power, without the UN treaty, the ability to limit entirely any sales to another country.

The current government is recording a huge deficit, well beyond its election promise of $10 billion. Yesterday, we learned it has already imposed higher taxes to the tune of $800-plus per year on middle-income earners. It has mandated a carbon tax with a compounded GST component already in some provinces that is adding to those people's taxes, hurting everyone and everything.

It is on a collision course to initiate higher, punitive taxes on small businesses, including agriculture, retail, tourism, manufacturing, small businesses, and young entrepreneurs just starting out as well. That is all to deal with the government's already out-of-control spending.

Canadians are tired, angry, and disillusioned with the current Liberal government's inability to manage its own house. Perhaps it is time to start taking care of things at home, and not try to fix something that not only is not broken but actually meets and exceeds the UN Arms Trade Treaty standards.

Another concern is that article 5 of the ATT seeks to include the Department of National Defence in the military equipment provisions of that treaty, preventing or, in some cases, limiting government-to-government transfers.

DND is government. It is a crown ministry. DND is responsible for its own equipment. Military-to-military aid and training materials are an important component of the mandate of our armed forces regarding training and assisting others. This would complicate and encumber that process. It is another bureaucratic challenge they do not need added on to complicate fulfilling their missions.

I want to echo one more concern of a significant cohort of Canadians the current government is ignoring. The UN Arms Trade Treaty must recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting, and collecting.

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association made the following statement to the Liberal government in September 2016:

Canada, under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, requested that civilian firearms specifically be removed from the treaty in order to protect the interests of Canada’s lawful firearms community. The UN ignored our nation’s request to respect the interests of Canadians and refused to remove civilian firearms from the language of the treaty. So the Harper government did what was right: it stood up for Canadian sovereignty and Canadian gun owners and refused to sign the treaty...The CSSA calls upon the Hon. Stéphane Dion [then Minister of Foreign Foreign Affairs] and the Trudeau government to re-examine, re-evaluate and to re-think the decision to sign this oppressive treaty.

The government has a responsibility to ensure there is absolute clarity on the legitimacy of lawful trade and ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their own use within the Arms Trade Treaty before moving forward to ratify it. The government would be wise to heed this challenge.

Liberal members of Parliament who are currently representing law-abiding gun owners must respectfully and genuinely consult with their constituents, and do their best to be heard by their cabinet and their Prime Minister. They must know they have significant numbers of Canadians in their ridings who have expressed legitimate concerns that their lawful and regulated use of firearms for hunting or sport shooting could be impacted. They must be having some degree of apprehensive déjà vu here.

They would be wise to determine which is more important: aspirations for a UN seat, or standing up for the legitimate concerns of Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be concerned that no matter how often it is clearly indicated there is no impact in terms of gun owners, Conservatives stand up and try to spread misinformation, which is what it is. Misinformation is being spread collectively by the Conservative Party for who knows what reason, and I will let other people deal with that.

Does the member not agree and recognize that this proposed legislation would in fact make our world a safer place?

The member makes reference to the current export control system, but she seems to be questioning it. I am sure the member is aware that Bill C-47, the actual bill we are debating today, would strengthen the existing system by ensuring criteria are in regulation, and by introducing controls on brokering.

Could the member speak to how Bill C-47 would strengthen, not replace or weaken, export controls, and let us stop the misinformation about local gun ownership?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say that I am not misrepresenting constituents. I am representing constituents in Canada who have tried desperately to speak to the current government to come to its senses, and to include them in a clause in that treaty, so they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our government is standing up for them, and protecting their right to own guns legally and lawfully within our country.

I would again encourage the Liberals to consider their own ridings, the people they represent, who I know in the rural areas are talking to them about this issue, and respond to Canadians with clear communication, so they know they have their best interests at heart. It would take nothing on the part of the government to represent them properly within this treaty and have their backs.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Yorkton—Melville for clarifying that when putting forward comments about the legislation, she is reporting on what her constituents have said.

I believe that as a member of Parliament it is my obligation to help explain to constituents and reduce the fear factor when people have been misinformed by others about the intent of legislation or changes that are coming their way.

I have carefully reviewed the Arms Trade Treaty and I have carefully reviewed Bill C-47, and for Canadians watching at home and for the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the key thing is when reading language, they should look at words like “under this act” or “under this treaty”. That creates a bracketing of this fear around the keeping of lists or records.

The treaty specifically says it is entirely about international transfer and export of military equipment for military ends. It specifically says it is not to apply to recreational users domestically. It specifically says in article 3 that it is about international export and not about when a state party imports weapons into its own country, not for export.

The act itself repeatedly says that a list will be kept for purposes under this act. Nothing here could possibly apply to legal gun ownership in Canada, and I urge my friend from Yorkton—Melville to help provide balance and real information on this topic and not encourage in any way legal gun owners in Canada to think this has any application to them.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague a great deal on a personal level and as a colleague in the House. However, she is the one who is misdirected on this point, because I do not need to convince my constituents that they are not thinking clearly. These are very bright gun owners. They are reading this act themselves, and their concern is with the part that states:

Paragraph 10.2(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) enter any place in which the inspector reasonably believes the person or organization keeps records or carries on any activity to which this Act applies;

This is not talking just government to government; this is talking about individuals, purchasers, and organizations. It needs that clarity, and if the government wants to respond to the people of Canada and their constituents who are concerned about this aspect, it can take care of it simply by addressing this issue with the United Nations.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very moved to stand in the House today to speak to this issue. As parliamentarians, we occasionally have the opportunity to address issues that are of fundamental importance not only to Canadians but to people around the world. I cannot think of any issues that are more important to people in our globe than those that concern safety, security, and peace. These are foundational issues upon which all other activities depend.

We are witnessing conflicts and violence in this world, both civil and across borders, that represent a failure of the international order. The treaty before us gives us an opportunity to improve our world.

As parliamentarians, we spend a lot of time saying “human rights”, “rule of law”, “democracy”, and “freedom”. These are words that have intense meaning and importance to Canadians and people around the globe. The complete antithesis occurs when people resort to arms, to force, to violence as a means of altering political or social reality in this world. There is nothing more antithetical to the rule of law than the rule of violence. There is nothing more opposite to democratic and peaceful resolutions of disputes between people than people picking up guns and firing at one another as a means of trying to settle disputes.

As one member of this House, I am very pleased to see the Liberal government accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. In fact, I had the opportunity to be in New York at the United Nations for one of the sessions where this issue was being debated. Illicit and irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons are a significant factor in human suffering worldwide, fuelling armed violence in all of its forms, including domestic violence, international armed conflicts, and civil disputes.

With the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty in December 2014, the majority of the world states agreed to establish global standards for responsible national decision-making on the transfer of conventional weapons. For the life of me, I cannot understand how any responsible legislator, not only in this country but in the world, could oppose the establishment of such a regime.

At the time, Stephen Harper's Conservative government refused to join the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada was the only member of NATO and the G7 not to have signed the ATT. I was embarrassed by that failure, and I think I speak for the vast majority of Canadians who were embarrassed by that move as well. The majority of Canadians want our country to be a responsible member of the international stage, doing our part to try to reduce violence in the world, to try to be an honest broker and help make and keep peace wherever there is conflict in the world.

In June of 2016, the current government announced that Canada would join the Arms Trade Treaty, and former foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion tabled the text of the treaty and an explanatory memorandum in the House of Commons. The goal of acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty was included in the mandate letter given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I support that measure.

Bill C-47, the bill before this House today, represents the legislative implementation of that commitment, and it includes legislative amendments to fulfill some of the treaty's provisions and bring Canada's laws and policies mostly into compliance with the ATT. Members will have noticed that I emphasized the word “some”. I will be focusing on some of the weaknesses and omissions in this bill, and I hope parliamentarians on all side of the House can roll up their sleeves and in good faith work to repair and improve them.

At present, we support the general thrust of this legislation, but we have serious concerns about its contents, particularly over what is missing.

Generally, polls show that most Canadians disapprove of arms deals with human rights abusers. I think many Canadians would be shocked to learn that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years under the Conservative government's stewardship. While Canada used to export arms mostly to NATO countries, under the Conservative government our arms exports shifted to include many countries with troubling—in fact, abysmal—human rights records. Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East after the United States, according to defence industry publication Jane's. Saudi Arabia is now the world's second-largest buyer of Canadian-made military equipment after the United States.

I want to pause for a moment and talk about Saudi Arabia.

This is a place that practises beheadings. This is a place where women cannot vote. This is a place where, up until recently, women could not even drive a vehicle, although I understand that Saudi Arabia has recently announced that it may start allowing women to drive vehicles. This is a country that has no record of democracy or respect for human rights whatsoever, and most troubling of all, Saudi Arabia is not restricting this heinous and abysmal human rights record to its own borders but has been involved in invading a neighbouring country, Yemen, where it is using Canadian-made military equipment against civilians in another country.

I would dare say that most Canadians do not support that. Most Canadians would like to see the present government take every possible step to cease exporting any military equipment to a country with that kind of human rights record, a country that is using aggressive weapons against innocent civilians.

Canada's existing arms export rules are supposed to prohibit sales of military hardware to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population. However, the example I just pointed out, and there are others, makes it clear that Canada's arms export controls are not working. While the Liberal government argues, as the Conservatives did before it, that Canada has strong arms export regulations, in recent months Canadians have grown increasingly concerned about those Canadian arms exports falling into the wrong hands. Worse, it was revealed last August that the Government of Canada has actually weakened its arms export policy to make it easier to export military hardware to states that abuse human rights.

The magazine L'actualité recently published an analysis that found that in the past 25 years Canada sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with deeply questionable human rights records. Canadian foreign ministers are often reluctant to refuse export permits after contracts are signed, but that is exactly what Canadian law calls for. Companies enter into commercial agreements, and then it is up to the government to issue export control permits and to cease from doing so if Canada has reason to believe that those arms are going to fall into the hands of human rights abusers or be used against civilian populations. That policy has not been implemented well by either the current government or the one before it.

I am going to quickly point out some of the flaws in the bill.

It has been pointed out by many speakers that ironically, most of Canada's arms are integrated with the U.S. military system, yet the bill does not apply to Canadian arms shipments to the United States. There is no principled reason that the United States should receive an exemption from the very laws that we seek to apply to every other country.

The bill also fails to ensure that parliamentarians can scrutinize the regulatory regime that will create the substance of the bill. We are debating the legislative structure before us, but we as parliamentarians will not be able to see or influence how the regulations will be drafted. Those will be done behind closed doors.

I will conclude by saying I think that most Canadians want to see Canada as a peaceful player on the world stage. They want to restore our reputation, which was severely damaged by the previous government over the last decade, and they want Canada to be a respected international player, doing our part to build bridges between countries to help them resolve their disputes peacefully and building capacity for democracy and respect for the rule of law. The way to do that is by taking every measure we can to reduce the flow of arms to people who would use them for poor purposes.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state clearly that our government takes very seriously the export of arms to countries around the world. We have a robust process in place to ensure that we consider the end-user and end use in issuing any export permits for arms headed to countries around the world.

Acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty would strengthen Canada's current export control system; establish a decision-making process, codify it, and ensure that it is more transparent, more robust, and more comprehensive; and ensure that Canada could contribute to greater peace and arms trade compliance in some conflict zones around the world. The ATT recognizes that there is no one size fits all for countries that are acceding to the treaty, and the decision to not require export permits for a majority of goods headed to the United States was determined to be fully compliant with the ATT.

Does the member opposite agree that acceding to this treaty via Bill C-47 would strengthen Canada's role in the trade of conventional arms around the world?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us certainly provides the capacity to do so, but good intentions in this area, while necessary, are not sufficient.

In 2014 and 2015, only 10 export permits were denied out of 7,310 applications. I mentioned Saudi Arabia, but Algeria and other human rights violators are among the top 10 destinations of Canadian military goods. That is according to the Department of Global Affairs' reports for 2015.

As I mentioned, Canadian-made weaponry has been used in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, where over 6,000 people have been killed and where one of the world's worst humanitarian situations continues to deteriorate.

Therefore, I would not be as quick to claim success as the government is with its approach to export controls, although I believe that Canada's accession to the treaty is a positive step in that regard.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful speech. He always presents the facts without getting into a lot of extra rhetoric. I really appreciate that.

The NDP put forward a motion a while ago seeking parliamentary oversight of arms sales, and it was turned down by the Liberal government. I would like to give the member an opportunity to talk about what the benefits would be of parliamentary oversight, and why he believes the Liberal government voted it down.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has long called for Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, and in 2016 we proposed the creation of a new standing committee to oversee arms exports. That would be a Canadian committee modelled after the successful U.K. parliamentary arms committee. It would be multipartisan and tasked with examining all aspects of Canada's arms exports regime.

There is currently no parliamentary oversight of Canadian arms exports whatsoever. We believe that a multi-party House committee could examine a full range of questions related to Canada's arms exports, such as where, to whom, how much, and what kind. It could identify loopholes in our existing legislation, regulations, and practices, and enable parliamentarians to hear from the arms industry, NGOs, government representatives, and the public.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against the creation of such a committee. We renew our call on the government to consider such a committee, if in fact it is truly committed to making progress in this area.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss a treaty as important as the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT.

I do commend the Liberal government and Prime Minister for committing to sign and ratify this treaty. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway that Canadians were ashamed when we were the only NATO country not to have signed the Arms Trade Treaty. Signing it is important; ratifying it is important. The legislation that comes before us today to allow us to implement the treaty is important.

I am going to take a few moments before I go into the details of what needs to be remedied within Bill C-47 to make it the legislation that Canada needs so that we really implement the Arms Trade Treaty. I am going to a few moments to put to rest, I hope, some of the distressingly flawed scare tactics by friends of mine on the Conservative benches. I am deeply distressed that people in the House would not be sure they understand the legislation before allowing people across Canada, particularly legal gun owners, to become alarmed by a bill they should not be alarmed about.

Moments ago in debate one of the Conservative members read out part of Bill C-47, in fact from clause 10. This is how people are misled. I am going to take some time to go through this, so that members in this place and people watching on CPAC, or however they are watching this, can see how selective reading can spread alarm.

This was read out from Bill C-47:

Inspection

10.2 (1) An inspector may, at all reasonable times, for any purpose related to the administration or enforcement of this Act, inspect, audit or examine the records of any person or organization

That was was read out as if this bill to deal with the arms trade, the transfer of military equipment, tanks, weapons, and all manner of conventional arms, would have an impact on any person or organization, such that they could suddenly have their door beaten down by an inspector.

Where the hon. member who read that statement stopped reading was right before the following words:

that has applied for a permit, an import allocation, or export allocation, a certificate or another authorization under this Act

There is no way in the world that the proposed subsection that was read out has the meaning that the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville just implied. The words “any person or organization” are followed immediately by the words “that has applied for a permit”. There is no legal gun owner across this country nor local gun store nor local supplier of recreational equipment of any kind that is dealing in arms and applying for a permit under this bill.

That is why I am so deeply distressed that Canadians who have fought against the long-gun registry, say, “Okay we no longer have a long-gun registry”, but are concerned about this. Canadians who fought against the long-gun registry do not need to worry. There is no way in this world that any portion of the global treaty or domestic legislation would apply to domestic activities.

Let me read these words from the treaty itself:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.

The treaty specifically says in article 2(3) the following:

This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by, or on behalf of, a State Party for its use provided that the conventional arms remain under that State Party's ownership.

To be very clear again, this treaty and the domestic act to bring it into force apply only to those who choose to ask the government for a permit to export the arms described in the treaty as including battle tanks; armoured combat vehicles; large-calibre artillery systems; combat aircraft; attack helicopters; warships; missiles and missile launchers; and small arms and light weapons. Unless the purpose is to export those to another country for military purposes, this legislation would not apply.

Let us see how well it would do in curtailing the arms trade from Canada to countries that we would not want to see using those weapons against their own people, countries with dubious human rights records.

When I was growing up, Canada was not an arms trading country. We did not think of ourselves as big in the arms trade business. The military industrial complex on the U.S. side of the border had not yet started taking over enough of our companies that we became enmeshed in their business.

Some of our defence decisions are influenced by commercial interests. The F-35 fighter plane boondoggle was embraced by previous governments because subcontracts might flow to the aerospace industry within Canada. This enmeshing of our economies has brought with it an enmeshing in parts that go into weapon systems that we would not want to see going to other countries. For instance, the United States recently sold warplanes and armoured vehicles to Nigeria. Those warplanes will have in them Pratt & Whitney engines manufactured in Quebec. Is that a concern? It is to Canadians. We need to track that. If we are serious about the Arms Trade Treaty, we do not want Canadian components and Canadian arms flowing through the U.S. to other countries.

Let us look at our history as an arms trading country. There has been a 48% increase in the arms trade. When it spiked one year there was a lot of national concern, which I remember. It was 1994, and there had been a 48% increase in our arms sales, which took us to $497 million that year. In 2016, Canada had a trade in arms of $718 million. That is far more than the peak year of 1994. Of that $718 million in weapons and arms we exported from Canada, nearly 20% went to Saudi Arabia, or a total of $142 million in sales.

It is critical that we make the Arms Trade Treaty work for the world. Canada has shown leadership on a treaty like this in the past. I wish we would show leadership as well on the nuclear disarmament treaty, as well as the fissile material cut-off treaty in which we are participating but not leading.

On this issue, we should look to our history with the Ottawa Treaty banning land mines. The movement that led to that treaty won the Nobel Peace Prize, and rightly so. December 3, 2017, will be the 20th anniversary of Canadian leadership in helping to rid the world of land mines. We have not yet rid the world of land mines, but their use has declined dramatically. We have proven statistics, proven evidence, that the land mine treaty has saved thousands of lives around the world, even though major world powers like the U.S., China, and Russia never signed on to the Ottawa Treaty. Still, the treaty works and has massively reduced land mine traffic.

Canada has an opportunity here to step up again. The minimum we can do is to sign and ratify the Arms Trade Treaty at the UN, but our domestic legislation must meet the purposes of our global commitment, and that means fixing the loophole that would allow military equipment under the definition of the treaty to pass through the United States. At this point, the U.S. has signed the treaty, but it will remain a non-state party to this treaty. This means that it will not have to track where the weapons go or meet the tests and the analysis and the screening that Canada and other parties must meet.

I say to my friends on the government benches, can we please get this legislation to committee and fill that loophole that is big enough to drive a tank through, the loophole that does not limit or record the sales and the transfer of weapons through the United States?

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always admire the work that goes into the speeches by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I thank her for her words this morning. I also appreciate her legal expertise and her reading the part of the bill that sets out that this will not apply to those Canadians who are legal gun owners. That is important, because we are hearing that message over and over again. I appreciate the member making that point.

It has been mentioned that we recognize that the illicit transfer of arms often equals violence. Violence is prominent in countries in conflict, and the violence is often against women and girls, who suffer atrocities and suffer a violation of their human rights. Does the member agree that this government is taking a leadership role on this through the ATT? How will this directly help these young women and girls in these countries of conflict?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we read of the atrocities by rogue non-state actors like Boko Haram, or the atrocities by state actors, such as Myanmar against the Rohingya people, we recognize that so much of this is made possible because of access to arms that are not manufactured in those countries but that freely flow and fill profit margins. Somewhere there are shareholders who are pleased to see that they are doing so very well. The global arms trade is something we should want to curtail, not expedite.

I spoke earlier of the Ottawa Treaty, which is tangential to the member's main point. There are still land mines in Angola and Cambodia. There are countries that still have land mines that impede the ability of women to collect water easily. As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Ottawa Treaty, I would urge Canada to step up to help clear land mines from countries that are now post-conflict, where women and girls are the most likely to have their day-to-day potential to grow food and travel safely impeded by land mines.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Green Party for hopefully bringing a sense of comfort to the many gun owners in my riding, where hunting is very much a part of the way of life for many people and many of my constituents.

The NDP will support Bill C-47 at second reading, and we hope to see amendments at committee. Since the member does not get a chance to participate actively in those committees, I would ask her if there are amendments she would like to see brought forward in addition to the one concerning tracking arms through the United States.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, I am forced by a decision of eight individual committees to present amendments at clause-by-clause study. I will be listening to all the evidence before the committee. I am grateful to the hon. member. I know he will be helpful when it gets to committee.

There are a number of other places we might want to tighten up the treaty. We may have amendments that are similarly worded. However, the main one, and I hope the Liberal benches will be open to helping us at committee, is to find a way to address the loophole in dealing with the transfer of arms. We do not need to single out the United States. We need to just say that where we are transferring weapons or arms of any kind, when we are dealing with a non-state party, we should also keep records.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill because it is extremely important to me.

The thing to keep in mind about arms treaties is that trading in arms is not the same as trading in potatoes. Arms can result in death and the destruction of the environment, depending on which type is used.

The use of this equipment carries consequences that are too great, which is why much more monitoring and supervision is required. We have to ask questions to determine what this equipment will be used for later, for example. That is one of the underlying questions in the Arms Trade Treaty that we are discussing here today. The urge to regulate the arms trade reflects a greater realization that we cannot simply sell weapons without asking how they will be used later on. That would make no sense.

Take our troops, for example. I think it is essential that we not send them somewhere to fight for the values of freedom, the values of the United Nations, and Canadian values, against people who are using Canadian arms that were sold to them directly, or transferred to them some other way, but ended up in the wrong hands.

Out of respect for our soldiers and because of what we, as a country, ask of them, we must have a solid arms trade policy that takes into account that arms will change hands more than once. If we think we know where arms will end up one day, then maybe we should refrain from selling them. It is not acceptable to turn a blind eye in order to make money in the arms trade. We really need to know where they are going and how they will be used.

This is a bill aimed at supporting the implementation of a treaty on the arms trade, but unfortunately, parts of it remain vague. For that reason, our party intends to support this bill and, by extension, the Arms Trade Treaty, but with the caveat that unless certain parts of the bill are clarified, it will not achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that arms are sold only to people capable of wielding them responsibly. It is crucial to know whether those that have weapons are capable of using them in a judicious and well-thought-out manner, or whether they will be irresponsible and have no scruples about violating human rights by deploying them against civilians.

We need to be even more careful with our arms exports. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the bill, as it currently stands, will achieve that goal. The best example before us is our arms deal with Saudi Arabia. We have proof that the weapons we sold to the Saudis are being used against their own citizens as a tool of repression. As human beings and as a society, we cannot live with this blood on our hands. We cannot accept Saudi money if we know that the vehicles they buy from us will ultimately be used for unacceptable purposes, as is happening now. It is a matter of integrity. I could not feel comfortable explaining to my child that weapons are being sent overseas and used against civilians.

However, I also understand that selling arms is an economic activity, and I agree that we should engage in that sort of trade with countries that abide by the treaty, NATO countries in particular. I know that these countries will use those weapons properly and wisely, and that they will not use them to violate human rights.

When we send weapons to a country that violates human rights as brazenly as Saudi Arabia, I have to wonder about our integrity. On one hand, we participate in this arms trade and we take the money that comes from it, while on the other, we condemn human rights violations. Our attitude does nothing to help stop the cycle of violence in Saudi Arabia. We are telling this country that what it is doing is not nice, but we are still agreeing to sell it weapons. It does not make any sense.

That is why we need to strengthen the provisions of the bill that deal with exports. Right now, they are too vague. The bill is not sound and does not settle the issue once and for all. There is also the matter of signing treaties and passing bills to ratify treaties. Treaties set out specific commitments and when a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to take specific action. The signing of such documents should not be seen as an opportunity for a selfie. It is serious business. If the government passes bills without any real intention of implementing the very principle on which the treaty is based, we are not really making any progress.

That is why I sincerely hope that we will take the time to seriously examine this bill in committee and that the government will accept amendments to strengthen the provisions regarding the export of firearms to countries that violate human rights. I think that is essential.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that the Arms Trade Treaty does not allow any exemptions. The United States is currently exempt from the provisions on arms trade. That presents a problem as well. We will have to decide what to do with the United States. Since the treaty does not provide for exemptions, we will have to find another solution. We cannot continue to conduct trade with the United States the way we do now if we truly want to respect the spirit of the treaty. That is another important issue.

When we talk about arms exchanging hands, we must keep in mind that some of the weapons sold to the United States are later transferred to another country. For example, some countries might help groups that find it difficult to arm themselves to ensure stability. On certain occasions we armed groups that we believed were capable of regaining control of their country and their region. Unfortunately, one of those groups turned against us years later.

When we decide to arm foreign groups, we have to ask ourselves if we are being smart about it and if we can be sure they will use the arms they receive to restore stability. We have to figure out whether there is any chance it could backfire and put us in the position of having to send Canadian troops to fight those groups a decade later.

We can all agree that we have to be smart and sensible about the arms trade, and that we must not ignore human rights issues. If we do, we kind of have blood on our hands.

As lawmakers, I hope the bill we ultimately pass will address this issue very clearly, not vaguely like the bill before us. I hope the committee will be smart and sensible about its work on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite and she comes across as being against armaments being exported from Canada. I do not want to misquote her in any way, but rather just remind her of the last provincial election, when the leader of her party campaigned next to the gates of a factory that was producing armaments that were being exported to Saudi Arabia. Many of the concerns she dealt with in her speech are related to Saudi Arabia, and yet the leader of the New Democratic Party, during the election, in front of those workers and our nation, said that he and the NDP would conform and abide by agreements that were signed.

I understood what the leader of the New Democratic Party said then, but then I listened to what the member across the way said today, and I would ask if she believes, as I do, that there are inconsistencies between what she is saying and what the leader of her party said and how she would address that.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my whole speech, not just the parts he wanted to hear, he would have heard me say very clearly that I am not against selling arms to NATO countries. I believe they are capable of using arms intelligently. However, I have my doubts about doing business with countries such as Saudi Arabia.

I encourage the member to listen to speeches in their entirety so he can ask much better questions.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the NDP tried to create a new standing committee in the House to oversee arms exports, so that arms would not go to countries that have massive human rights violations. The proposal for this committee was put forward and, of course, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against such an oversight committee, which would be critical because there is no parliamentary oversight of Canadian arms exports, and this is despite the fact that Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East.

I would ask my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue if she could speak about the importance of the oversight of arms exports.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, oversight is indeed extremely important, especially with regard to procurement. It is imperative that we ask questions about where the arms that leave Canada are going. It is a matter of accountability.

When I was the critic for military procurement, that was one of the questions I would routinely ask companies. I would ask who they did business with and whether they tried to sell their products in a responsible way. That is one of the key issues in the arms trade. We cannot keep closing our eyes and giving companies money to buy us weapons when those same companies export arms to countries we might have to fight. It makes absolutely no sense for us to buy fighter planes to attack armoured vehicles that were made in Canada to begin with. We would not have to fight those vehicles if we had not sold them in the first place. We need to use common sense. When it comes to dealing in arms and military equipment, we need to take our heads out of the sand and start asking questions.

I believe it is precisely the role of parliamentarians to ask these questions and think about how the arms trade is conducted. However, the Liberals decided that creating a committee to oversee arms exports was not all that important. I am very disappointed by their attitude, because the whole reason Parliament exists is to consider all these issues so Canadians can see that their MPs and senators are doing their job and making sure the arms trade is conducted responsibly. Unfortunately, when the NDP's motion was voted down, it meant Parliament and its members were prevented from taking action.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak on Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. In 2016, the Liberals announced that they would agree to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This bill, if adopted, would implement the ATT.

Conservatives have always supported efforts to establish international standards for the trade of arms, which would help prevent illicit transfers to tyrannical regimes, terrorists, or criminal organizations bent on harming innocent people throughout the world and fuelling conflicts with their neighbours. I am stating for the record, which I am sure will not surprise many of my hon. colleagues in the House, that I oppose this bill. There are several reasons I oppose it, and for the benefit of Canadians watching on CPAC or in the House, I will explain why.

First, Canada already has an accountable and robust internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment, controls that meet or exceed those laid out in the ATT. The Trade Controls Bureau, which regulates the Export and Import Permits Act, has provided ministers, since the beginning of the cold war, with the ability to prevent the export of heavily restricted items of a military nature to countries that, for a variety of reasons, are perceived to be a threat internally or externally or are under sanctions by the United Nations. We take this seriously. We restrict dangerous items, which include military, strategic dual-use goods, nuclear energy materials and technology, missile, chemical, or biological goods, and cryptological equipment.

Second, we have a comprehensive and rigorous system in place to track and record more items, not fewer, than will be required under the ATT. What is more, Canadians are doing the tracking, not foreign governments. Canadian agencies, fully accountable to Parliament, like the Canada Border Services Agency, which tracks items, and Statistics Canada, which collects information on all items exported from Canada, classify these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization.

Third, Canada has at its disposal the area control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on this list and receive a blanket trade ban. North Korea is there right now. In the past, the list has included other countries like Belarus and Myanmar.

Fourth, countries that represent most of the sales of military equipment, like Russia and the United States, have either not signed or likely will not ratify the ATT. How effective is this? How does the government currently think that the ATT would be very effective when key participants in the trade of these items are not part of the treaty?

Fifth, any military trade treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for uses such as sports shooting, hunting, and collecting. The Conservatives have taken a strong and principled stance on this issue. We believe that any military trade treaty must recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their recreational use. This is why we did not sign the treaty when we were in government. We could not guarantee the protection of such traditional Canadian activities like hunting, for example.

We must remember that our primary duty as parliamentarians is to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies stood in the House and did a great job of outlining that issue for law-abiding gun owners, hunters, and recreational firearm enthusiasts. He was asked about this matter in particular and faced a few questions, and there were calls for the member and others to point to where in the legislation there would be a gun registry. I am not going to waste everybody's time here rereading that bill into the record as it has already been done by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

Before members ask me to point to sections that talk about keeping records, I should specify that it is “any records” that the minister stipulates, or the section that references that the minister can require “any person or organization that is required to keep records” to retain them for any period. I challenge members to take the bill back to their ridings and have a farmer, a hunter, a sports shooting enthusiast, or even a gun collector interpret it for them. I guarantee there will be a lot of questions on it.

I am sure they will give their thoughts on another gun registry, a registry—I might remind members—that targeted law-abiding firearms owners, cost the taxpayers of Canada some $2 billion, and did absolutely nothing to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals.

Now we have a government that promised not to introduce a gun registry, yet here it is, the very strong potential for a backdoor gun registry. This seems to be the modus operandi for the government: to introduce proposals that it knows will not pass muster, under some guise. As the old saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

Summer is the traditional time for vacations or in the case of farmers and entrepreneurs a very busy time, especially in my riding where the summer tourist season is short in some cases. In Ontario we had weather that was not exceptional for some tourist operators, marinas, hotels, and that sort of thing, so that is a crucial period and they are very busy. In the midst of summer, the Minister of Finance tried to slip past massive tax hikes on small business owners, professionals, and farmers, many of whom were in the fields when this was announced. They were busy.

What is it about law-abiding Canadians who are minding their own business that the government has such an issue with? Whether it is responsible gun owners enjoying a recreational pastime or hard-working small business entrepreneurs creating the jobs that grow the economy of this country, the government seems to feel obligated to meddle with legislation that is working fine.

Conservatives agree that Canada's tax system should be fair and equitable for all, and we agree that any military trade treaty we sign needs to protect the rights of Canadian firearms enthusiasts, so why has the government tried to stifle debate and “consult” in the middle of summer? Why is the consultation period set to end next Monday, just 10 days after the resumption of Parliament? Why will the government not prove to Canadians that there was not ill intent, and extend the tax hike consultation deadline?

I can tell everyone why, and it is the same reason that we are debating this problematic bill right now. The Liberal government feels it knows better. It knows better than Canadians and it knows better than the citizens of this country. The government wants to make the world less safe by adopting the ATT, which will do less to protect Canadians, our allies, and innocent lives around the globe. The government wants to remove oversight by trusted Canadian agencies, which are accountable to Parliament and by extension the people of Canada. It wants to do this to reintroduce a piece of legislation it promised not to introduce, a piece of costly legislation nobody wants. Why? It is because it seems to know better. I am here to say it does not, and I suspect it will not be long before Canadians tell it the same thing as well. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the comments made by my colleague across the way. I wonder if he would explain to his constituents that what Bill C-47 would do, in addition to providing a more codified way in which Canada can ensure that conventional arms are not getting into the hands of people who would do undue harm to women and children in conflict zones, is that it would leave in place the exact same record-keeping regime that was in place under the previous Conservative government. Would he explain that to his constituents, and would he also explain to them that Canada has a leadership role to play in helping address situations where women and young children are unduly and negatively affected in conflict zones? Canada can help regulate and resolve some of the terrible things that happen around the world.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I do appreciate the enthusiasm. I see him often in the halls, and we do have great conversations. It is good to see him all fired up over there. I appreciate that. No argument here, I would agree. We just want to ensure that those who are legally possessing firearms in this country do not have a back-door gun registry. That is it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code.

What I am about to say has probably been said by a number of my colleagues, but I will reiterate some of the key points.

I believe, as many government members have already stated, that under article 10 of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, Canada is required to establish brokering controls. It is important to note that within the proposed legislation, brokering is defined as arranging or negotiating a transaction that relates to the movement of goods or technology on a new brokering control list from a foreign country to another foreign country.

Under the government's proposed legislation, the act would implement controls around the brokering of military goods between two countries outside of Canada. In addition, a legal obligation would be established whereby the Minister of Foreign Affairs considers specific assessment criteria prior to authorizing permits. For summary conviction offences, the maximum fine under the Export and Import Permits Act, or EIPA, would be increased from $25,000 to $250,000. Under the Arms Trade Treaty, all states are assigned the primary responsibility in establishing and implementing their respective national control systems. Within the framework of the Arms Trade Treaty, the Department of National Defence is required to be brought into the export control system.

There have been many arguments put forward that the legislation before us is flawed. My colleagues have named a number of them. I would like to summarize some of the concerns I have with Bill C-47.

First, it is important to know that Canada already has a responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment that meets or exceeds the UN treaty.

There are three of four areas I will touch on.

The first is the Trade Controls Bureau in Ottawa, which regulates the Export and Import Permits Act. Since 1947, it has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including those that are a security threat, involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanctions by the United Nations.

The second is that specific items are already heavily restricted by Canada include military or strategic dual-use goods; nuclear energy materials and technology; missile, chemical or biological goods; and cryptological equipment. Companies throughout Canada are leaders in many of these areas.

The third is that we are already tracking and recording more than what is required under the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classify these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization.

Canada can also utilize a blanket ban on trade with risk countries through the use of the area control list, which, under the Export and Import Permits Act, through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on that list. North Korea is there at present. In the past, the list has included Belarus and Myanmar.

Furthermore, countries that represent the majority of the sales of military equipment, Russia and the United States, have either not signed or have not, and likely will not, ratified the treaty, which has been mentioned by my colleagues here today. Like many ineffective international treaties, the key participants in the trade are not part of the treaty, which raises alarm bells in itself.

The Department of National Defence, as a crown department, is traditionally exempted from the export control system. Exports of military aid or government-to-government gifts do not require authorization, and occur without oversight by Canadian export control officials.

Article 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty would require bringing our Department of National Defence into the export control system. I know that many MPs have stated that any Arms Trade Treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for uses such as sports shooting, hunting, and collecting.

The Liberals have moved forward with an Arms Trade Treaty that does not respect the legitimate trade or use of hunting and sporting firearms. We are concerned that little or no consultation with lawful gun owners was undertaken by the Liberals before they unilaterally decided to accede to this treaty. That brings to mind a meeting I held in my own constituency early in September, when I met with gun owners throughout my constituency and had a workshop with them. This bill was raised by those individuals in discussions.

They are the ones that were concerned about whether the government would be bringing in a backdoor gun registry again, as my colleague from Kawartha Lakes just mentioned. This is a concern that is on people's minds, not only in my constituency. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has mentioned as well that there was a concern in her area, my neighbouring constituency in Saskatchewan.

There are a number of reasons Canadians are feeling they cannot possibly trust the Liberal government when it comes to some of these areas, or they have concerns about some of the things that might be in this bill. That is because the government has already not fulfilled some of the other promises they made, and have driven extensive legislation out of the way to overtax citizens in Canada. The carbon tax, the implementation of the corporate tax laws it is looking at, are some examples, and of course, the idea there may be a gun registry coming back.

From the discussions and calls I have received since that meeting in Brandon three weeks ago on gun registries, Bill C-47, and the thoughts on them, we have also seen a much more driven focus by the Liberal government to tax. It is trying to bring in corporate tax changes on small businesses, medium-sized farming operations, and family farming operations. There is much concern in our rural areas about driving away professionals such as doctors, which are already in short supply.

With those concerns, I will not be supporting Bill C-47.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, before my hon. colleague's speech took a bit of a detour at the end, he was effectively affirming what we have been saying in this House over the past two days of debate on this bill. What this bill would do is keep in place a record-keeping regime that has existed since the 1940s, existed under the previous Conservative government, and in no way affects lawful gun ownership in Canada.

He referenced the brokering controls that come into place under the accession to the ATT in Bill C-47, a system that would mimic the regime that has been in place since the 1940s. All we are saying is that Canada has a role to play in ensuring the brokering of conventional arms that often enter into conflict zones, where they are used for terrible purposes, is something we as a country should be stepping up to the plate to help better oversee and monitor.

Bill C-47 is a commitment to strengthen Canada's role in the arms export regime. It does nothing to law-abiding gun owners in Canada. Does the member realize that early on his speech he effectively affirmed just that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Kawartha, I want to make sure there is legitimacy in the bill. It has not been confirmed by the act as it is written in certain sections, or else the local citizens, which many of my colleagues have talked about, would not be raising the issues of concern they have. It would have been very simple for the government to make a blanket statement that those were removed, but it has not.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the comment from my friend, the parliamentary secretary, it is so interesting that the Liberals want to completely downplay any impact of this, as if they think there is no point in the legislation in the first place.

We know that people have raised substantial and legitimate concerns. If the government is so dismissive of the substantial effect of its own legislation, does the member have any thoughts on why it is doing so in the first place?

We have an arms control system. While there are other countries that need to improve their arms control, we have a very strong arms control system in Canada. Why not just leave it at that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. It is the point I was trying to make in my earlier comments that the parliamentary secretary was alluding to. A good deal of what is there was already in place before the Liberals ever brought the bill forward. All we are saying is that the government has other issues in the bill that it could have either left out or clarified. Therefore, Canadians are leery of the process of why the bill is before them in the first place.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He explained his position very clearly, but since there is a good chance the bill will be sent to committee for further study following the vote at second reading, I want to ask him if he thinks Canada would be justified in reducing our trade with countries that violate human rights and not authorizing trade through the United States, when it cannot be done directly.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out that a number of years back when our foreign affairs minister was dealing with this, Canada's position was based on fairness and law-abiding rules. One of the statements I received in an email was, “We received a strong mandate to implement our platform, including abolishing the wasteful long-gun registry [here in Canada]. It does not make sense to abolish that registry at home only to support one internationally.” I will leave it at that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against 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).

As Conservatives, our party has always supported efforts to establish international standards for arms transfer that help prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflict, encourage terrorism, or organized crime.

There is nothing new here. The argument is around what the bill could do and whether it is really needed, and whether it is fair and effective. I will be addressing the bill from these standpoints.

However, we also believe that any treaty should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible Canadian citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting, and collecting. This is a focal point in this whole argument, so how can we agree to any act that would not at least address some internal issues that really matter to our own citizens in Canada? That is a very important element that we should address and pay attention to.

As such, this bill is ineffective and unfair. I will address those points. This bill would establish controls over brokering in military goods between two countries outside Canada, create a legal obligation on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to consider certain assessment criteria before authorizing permits, and increase the maximum fine under the EIPA from $25,000 to $250,000 for summary conviction offences. The ATT assigns the primary responsibility of all states in establishing and implementing their respective national control systems. Article 5 of the ATT requires bringing DND into the export control system.

At the outset we know that Canada has a very responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment, a system that meets or exceeds the UN treaty.

Based on that, we are ahead of the game and ahead of the world in how we address certain issues. The question that comes to mind is, why are we entertaining something that is less important, less effective, and also far behind? Are we taking a step forward here, or are we taking a step backwards?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Forward.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I think this bill is ineffective because the Trade Controls Bureau already regulates the trade under the Export and Import Permits Act, which since 1947 has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including if they are a security threat, are involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanction by the United Nations.

Our regime already addresses the issue of countries under sanction by the United Nations. We are already ahead of the game, addressing and working with the United Nations. I cannot understand why this bill is necessary. It repeats existing work. It is definitely not a progressive move, but a regressive one.

Somebody has to stand up and raise the flag and ask, “Why are we doing this?”

Second, specific items are already heavily restricted by Canada. They include military or strategic dual use goods, including nuclear energy materials and technology, missiles, chemical or biological goods, and cryptological equipment. What is new? What would Bill C-47 do for us that we have not already been doing for a long time? In the 70 years since 1947, we have been ahead of the world. Therefore, if I do not call this a total waste of time, I would call it an unnecessary and time-consuming shift in focus.

Third, we are already tracking and recording more than is required under the ATT. The Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classifies these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization. Again, we have data. The ATT does not share data, which is something we also have to pay attention to. When we have our own data, we control our borders. We have all these high standards, so why should we, under any circumstance, take a step backward?

In addition, Canada can also utilize a blanket ban on trade with risky countries through the use of the area control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on the list. North Korea, at present, is an example. In the past, we have included Belarus and Myanmar on that list. Again, Canada's role has always been ahead of the international community's and on those measures. We have always been there, and our role has been a fine example to the rest of the international community, with all due respect to the United Nations itself.

Also, a very interesting point I should be bringing up is that major countries that represent the majority of sales of military equipment have declined to sign the agreement. This is evidence of why the bill is ineffective. If three of the top six countries that export military equipment are not in the treaty, logically speaking the treaty would be very ineffective. Therefore, we had better stick to our system, which we can control. It is a system that we created and under which we have been ahead of the whole world for 70 years.

The Department of National Defence, as a department of the crown, is traditionally exempt from the export control system. Exports of military aid or government-to-government gifts do not require authorization and occur without oversight by Canadian export control officials. Article 5 of the ATT would require bringing DND into the export control system.

On a final note, the bill is unfair. It is unfair to our citizens. It seems like the government is only working on improving its image, without paying attention to the interests of law-abiding Canadians, like hunters and sport shooters.

Another important argument I would bring to the House is that the government has not consulted Canadians. Where is the consultation? Where is the government that consults on everything? Why did it not consult on this with law-abiding Canadians?

Moreover, what are the benefits? There are no benefits. It is a total waste of time to even go that route. We could pay attention to more important stuff instead of just repeating something again and again. It is not a step forward. It is a step backward.

In summary, I have spoken on two important elements in regard to the bill: its ineffectiveness and its unfairness.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what is unfair is the complete and utter phony rhetoric coming from the Conservative benches on the non-issue of supposed changes to domestic firearms ownership in Canada.

That said, I would agree with the member that this government has had to work doubly hard to improve its image on the international scene after 10 years of isolation and darkness under the Stephen Harper government of Canada. It let itself slip in how the rest of the world viewed us as being the leading country on the international stage.

Moving out of that darkness, let me enlighten the member on one of the new aspects contained in this bill, the regulation of brokering, which is the facilitation of the trade of goods from one country to another. That is a new aspect of this bill, and the brokering regulations in this bill would fall under the exact same regulations that have been in place since the 1940s, including under the previous Conservative government. That is one thing that is new. Let me just reaffirm for everyone paying attention to this debate that one thing that is not new is any change to domestic firearms ownership in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Edmonton Manning, I just want to remind the hon. members that although do get some heckling back and forth, I am hearing some stuff that is very personal and could be considered unparliamentary. I just want to warn the individual, without naming him, that it is coming to my ears and that is not good.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is phony and bogus is the government members trying to claim that Canada was a bad boy, running from its responsibilities in the international community. This is the negative rhetoric coming from the current government. The Liberals try hard, thinking that people will believe the rhetoric that Canada was a bad person running from its responsibilities to the international community. Canada has never run away from its responsibilities on the world stage, and it is bogus for the government members to argue that someone who claims otherwise is bogus and phony. There is nothing more phony than a government that takes every opportunity to show it is the best and everyone else is worth nothing.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring this to the attention of the House. We all remember former minister Baird as a great guy who represented a Toronto riding. This is just something that his office said. He wanted to have fairness for law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. One of the reasons we signed on to the original agreement was the desire to exempt sports hunters and sports shooters, etc. However, that did not happen and that is why we could not sign it. Former minister Baird referred to how afraid the Liberal Party was of being branded as re-establishing that registry because it has a lot of rural ridings. He said that it does not make sense to abolish that registry only to support one internationally. That is exactly why we are opposed to Bill C-47.

Does my hon. colleague think it is okay on the one hand as a government to get rid of a registry that nobody seemed to like in Canada, and that was brought in by a former Liberal government, and then establish another one internationally? Does he think that is okay?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I referred to this bill as a total waste of time. The government has time to consult with the Canadians to whom this bill matters. There is no consultation. We do not hear anything. When somebody raises a question, the Liberals call him or her bogus; they call them phony. That is not fair. At the end of the day, the government has to do its job in regard to what matters to Canadian citizens, what matters to our own people first, before making any attempt to change anything that falls around us.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak today to second reading of Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code with amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments.

This legislation is of concern to law-abiding firearms owners in my constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot. Many of us own firearms, and we use them on our farms and ranches as tools for rodent control and so on. We also enjoy sport shooting.

The Liberals' firearms laws have cost us dearly over the past decades. They have cost us considerable worry and paperwork. They have cost money that many of my constituents just do not have to spend on renewing licenses and filling out application forms and more.

Once again we see the Liberals pandering to the United Nations in their attempt to win a seat on the UN Security Council. The Liberal government is desperate for that seat and is willing to do anything to ingratiate itself with anyone who might cast a vote in favour of Canada's becoming a member.

The Liberals have snooped around and have found a military equipment treaty that Canada has yet to ratify, and that is what Bill C-47 is about. The Liberal government is forcing Canada to meet certain obligations contained in this treaty. Canada will be required to implement brokering controls. Under the proposed bill, brokering is defined as arranging or negotiating a transaction that relates to the movement of goods or technology on a brokering control list from one foreign country to another foreign country.

Our previous Conservative government did not ratify this treaty because it was really a treaty that was written for other nations. Canada is recognized as having a very responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment that meets or exceeds the United Nations treaty.

Canada's Trade Controls Bureau regulates the Export and Import Permits Act, which since 1947 has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, countries that are a security threat or are involved in internal or external conflict or are under sanctions of the United Nations. Canada can decide whether or not it will export to those countries.

Specific items that are already heavily restricted by Canada include military or strategic dual-use goods; nuclear energy materials and technology; missile technology; chemical and biological goods; and many other kinds of equipment. Treaties are already there for these goods.

Canada is already tracking and recording more than required under the treaty. The Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classify the items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization.

Canada can also utilize a blanket ban on trade with high-risk countries through the use of the area control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Although it takes an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on that list. North Korea is currently on that list. In the past the list has included Belarus and Myanmar, as my colleague from Brandon—Souris mentioned.

Major countries that represent the majority of the sales of military equipment, Russia and the United States, have either not signed on to the treaty or have not and likely will not ratify it.

Why did I go through those four items that already show that Canada has the opportunity to regulate and to watch a country? I did it because this legislation is simply overkill. That is why the United States is not going with it. That is why Russia and other countries are not likely to ratify the agreement, although they may have signed on to it.

As with many ineffective international treaties, the key participants in the arms trade are not part of the treaty, but the Liberals want Canada to sign this treaty anyway. Why on earth do the Liberals want Canada to sign on to a treaty that was not designed with Canada in mind and is focused on other countries? Who knows why the Liberals would bring this legislation forward?

I can tell the House why I believe they did and I will tell the House in a few moments exactly what my constituents believe the Liberals are up to.

I believe this treaty will affect Canada in a negative way. Let me give the House a couple of examples.

The Department of National Defence, as a department of the crown, is traditionally exempted from the export control system. Bill C-47 would force the Department of National Defence to adhere to erroneous sections of export control systems like never before, but the Liberals do not really care about that. They just want to be able to say that Canada has ratified this United Nations agreement, this UN treaty. The United Nations will indeed be surprised, because former Prime Minister Stephen Harper declined to put Canada through this, and the international community understood why he said “no thanks” and accepted it.

We were not pushed into this. The folks at the UN will be surprised that of all things, the current Prime Minister is willingly and feverishly and actively trying to ratify this treaty. Many at the UN will consider this dusting off of an old treaty rather odd, but they will recognize that it is simply the Prime Minister desperately trying to do something, and in this case it may be that he might be able to get a few extra votes for the United Nations Security Council. They will understand and see right through this disingenuous offer to ratify.

Right now exports of military aid or government-to-government gifts do not require authorization and occur without oversight by Canadian export control officials, but with the passage of Bill C-47, Canada will be required to bring our Department of National Defence into the export control system. In other words, our national defence will now be under this agreement. This arrangement would actually work against helping other nations. It will burden Canada whenever we want to help other nations. The Department of National Defence will have more red tape—a lot more, perhaps—to cut through before we can provide the goods or services we used to be able to provide without hesitation.

How does this fit with “Canada is back”? The Prime Minister is actually putting Canada in a much more difficult position. Canada is one step back with the Prime Minister making the statement, but he has set Canada two steps back when it comes to being able to help other countries. The Prime Minister said Canada is here to help, but again, the bill would add more red tape and require the Department of National Defence to do much more.

The Liberals are denying that they are launching any new form of gun registry with the bill. However, there is a requirement for exporters or importers to retain records in a specific electronic file for a period of up to six years. This file must be made available to the ministry upon its request at any point of time. Again, my constituents question whether this requirement does not create some kind of a registry. Does this not create a registry that would be available to the minister in electronic form, naming firearms and the people who have them?

The information has to contain all the particulars pertaining to the sale, import, or export of a firearm. As well, the information does not just deal with firearms alone—

Suspension of Sitting

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will have to interrupt the hon. member. He will have one minute and 30 seconds left when we return. At this time, we are going to suspend until we return at the call of the Chair. I urge everyone to evacuate the building. Thank you.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:47 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 2 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot had a minute and a half left before we were so rudely interrupted by the fire alarm.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 17 years as a member of Parliament, that is the first time that has happened while I have been giving a barnburner of a speech. I did not realize that somebody would pull the fire alarm because it was such a smoking speech.

I was talking about the concern that the Liberals are trying to push through the back door what they would not be willing to bring through the front door: something very much like a registry, if not an actual registry of the kind we had. Make no mistake: when Allan Rock established the long-gun registry in the 1990s, my constituents were against it and have been against it since then. When the Conservatives were elected under the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, it was one of the commitments we made, and we did it. We said we would get rid of the long-gun registry, and we did. We said that we would get rid of all of the data so that it could not be brought up again, and we did.

Now the government is saying that if we do not have the ability to do it here, let us do it somewhere else, and the United Nations stands as a beacon for an opportunity to bring forward some type of registry. Conservatives say no. We are not going to take the chance. Liberals give us platitudes and tell us to worry not and fear not, but we have seen this show before and we are not going to stand for another registry.

In closing, I would ask this one question. When red tape is added, do members believe that will make the export and import of firearms more expensive or less expensive? If somebody bringing firearms into Canada now has to deal with all of this paperwork and red tape, will it make it more difficult to bring them in? Is it going to drive the cost of firearms up?

The Liberal government is going to do all it can to punish lawful firearms owners in this country, and Conservatives will have nothing to do with it.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Export and Import Permits Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the recorded division for second reading of Bill C-47 be deferred until Monday, October 2, at the end of Government Orders.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, you would find that there is unanimous consent to further defer the deferred recorded division for second reading of Bill C-47 until Tuesday, October 3, at the end of the time provided for oral questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Accordingly, the recorded division is further deferred until Tuesday, October 3, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from September 28 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, October 2, 2017, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-47.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #356

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to and bill refered to a committee)

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 6:07 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.