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 proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are two motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of C-47. Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-47, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 5 the following:

“(2) If, subsequent to the issuance of the permit, the Minister becomes aware of any information that could affect the determination made under subsection (1), he or she shall reconsider whether the risk that the export or the brokering of the goods or technology specified in the application for the permit would result in any of the negative consequences referred to in subsection 7.3(1) and, if applicable, amend, suspend or cancel the permit.”

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-47 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

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

Madam Speaker, when the Liberal government announced that Canada would finally accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, I was very happy, and I congratulated the government at that time. For years now, the NDP has been asking Canada to join this important, life-saving treaty that addresses important issues such as gender-based violence and the illegal arms trade, which is a major destabilizing force internationally.

This boils down to one more broken Liberal promise. They say they want to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, but Bill C-47, which is before us today, respects neither the spirit nor the letter of that treaty.

The current bill was described by an expert to whom I spoke as making a mockery of the Arms Trade Treaty. Even though we in the NDP wanted, and have pushed for years, Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, we cannot support the bill because it does not respect the treaty. It does not respect either the letter or the spirit of the treaty.

In fact, this bill is full of holes. It might as well be a sieve that lets everything through, even the important bits. The first hole, a massive one, is that this bill does not cover any of our exports to the United States.

We have to take into account that over 50% of our arms exports are to the U.S. When I say over 50%, I do not mean 51% or 52%; I mean it could be 55%, 60% or 65%. In fact, we do not even know. Officials tell us that it is over 50%, but we do not know what the actual percentage is because those exports are not tracked and are not reported. In committee, when I said we should at least report on our arms exports to the U.S., one of my Liberal colleagues answered that it was difficult to report on something the government did not track. That is a problem.

It should be tracked, especially right now when President Trump is lowering the bar for export to countries like Nigeria. This risk that arms or components produced in Canada find their way to a range of countries where we would not want to see those arms is even greater.

Members will recall when the sale of helicopters to the government of the Philippines hit the news. When this news became public, everyone remembered that the President of the Philippines had boasted about throwing a man from a helicopter and said that he would do it again. Everyone was busy trying to stop the deal. The Philippine authorities were a bit insulted, and the plan was dropped. However, there are reports that the company in question now plans to send helicopter parts to the United States, assemble them there, and send them to the Philippines. They found a good way to get around the act. This poses a practical problem in that we have no control over more than half of our arms sales.

This violates the letter and the spirit of the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty calls for universal adherence. We cannot pick and choose, saying that exports to one place will be covered by the treaty, but exports to another place will not. This is not how treaties normally work, and this is not how this particular treaty works.

I would like to get back to the sale of helicopters to the Philippines. People are asking how this could have happened and how the minister approved an export permit for these helicopters to the Philippine government.

The problem is that an export permit was not needed. The agreement between the two defence departments was brokered by the Canadian Commercial Corporation. That is another gaping hole. These are nevertheless exports of a sensitive nature made without the requirement to obtain the minister's approval or an evaluation of the risk of these arms being used to commit human rights violations. This a gaping hole in how we manage Canadian exports.

What does Bill C-47 do to solve this problem? Guess what, absolutely nothing.

Bill C-47 does not even cover the activities of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Commercial Corporation, so there is a huge loophole, and we do not know whether that loophole will still be wide open. Export to the U.S. is not reported on, not covered by the treaty. DND and CCC are not covered by the treaty. What is left is shrinking all the time.

This legislation should be sent to the shredder, because it is basically flawed. I am not the only one to say this. All of the experts are saying it as well, but, of course, the Liberal government will not listen to them. The government will ram through this legislation even though it could weaken the actual treaty. I always wonder where Canada is in the world. To me, it is not back on the world stage.

That would be the ideal solution, but the Liberal government will not do it. However, at least we are trying to improve it a bit. This amendment would close another crucial element of the Arms Trade Treaty that is not covered in the current bill. It would make sure that if an export licence has been given and new information comes to light, the minister has to reassess the export permit. I hope that my colleagues will support that. It is part of the treaty and it should be in the bill. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the minister refused to do so.

Here I will rest my case.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work in committee.

I find it unfortunate that she is now expressing her opposition to Canada's accession to the ATT. The NDP once took the principled stance that Canada should be a leader in regulating the sale of conventional arms around the world. I am not surprised that, once again, NDP members have abandoned their principled position in favour of partisan opposition in their stance.

I do want to correct the record, though. Bill C-47 will see the entirety of the Government of Canada accede to the ATT. All of the organizations and departments which the member referenced will be a party to ATT standards. It will allow Canada to play a leadership role in regulating the sale of conventional arms worldwide.

Why is the NDP once again proposing to abandon its principled position that will help Canada play a leadership role in the world?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He may have missed my speech because I was very clear: we fully support the ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty, but it has to be done properly. We cannot just say that we have signed the treaty, we have to abide by it.

However, we are completely opposed to this bill, which makes a mockery of the Arms Trade Treaty and does not comply with it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for taking the stand that she did and for presenting it on behalf of our party.

The Liberal government has a propensity to say one thing and do another. The Liberals say that Canada is back internationally. They say that we are acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty like they say they will put UNDRIP into Canadian law, but they drag their heels.

Would it not be nice if the Liberals genuinely acceded to the treaty and we set an example for the world in the treatment and sale of arms?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. She does tremendous work on the nuclear disarmament file, which is a major concern for the NDP. I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House today to congratulate her on the extraordinary work she is doing.

My colleague made a key point about something that we are unfortunately seeing on a number of files. The government members give great speeches, and I must admit that I often agree with what they say about foreign affairs, but I completely disagree with what they are doing. There is in fact a contradiction between what the government is saying and what it is doing.

The Liberals often say one thing and then do the opposite, and not just when it comes to foreign affairs. Two good examples are electoral reform and climate change. Sometimes, they say one thing and then do nothing, much like when they acceded to the optional protocol on torture, which was announced two years ago. There has been complete silence in that regard.

I would like the Liberals to walk the talk, as the saying goes. I am sorry I cannot translate that expression for the interpreters.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all the work she did at committee on the Arms Trade Treaty, but I would like to ask her this.

We know that once this bill has passed, the Arms Trade Treaty will be legally binding to Canada both in Canadian law and in international law. I am therefore very surprised to hear that now she is stressing that we not ratify and not pass this bill. In fact, when we went to the United States, we spoke with the office of regional security and arms transfers in the Department of State that said the American rules, in many ways, are even stronger than Canadian rules, including on brokering controls and end-user agreements.

Therefore, if my colleague could please explain why now, after all this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will give her an opportunity to answer, because we have run out of time.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

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

Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleagues do not seem to understand the difference between supporting the idea of acceding to the treaty and supporting this very weak bill.

That makes a mockery of the Arms Trade Treaty.

I rarely refer to my experience as a diplomat, but when I worked in that capacity, I never would have expected an American diplomat or anyone from the American administration to admit that they have extremely weak rules. We need to face reality. We are not in control of the situation and the Trump administration is further weakening the American export rules.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-47, a bill that would implement an international arms control treaty. Bill C-47 lays bare a fundamental difference in the foreign policy approach of the Conservative official opposition and the Liberal government. I agree very much with my NDP colleague that the difference is that the Liberal government is primarily concerned with optics as opposed to real results for Canadians, lots of nice fancy window dressing with little or no results.

Previously, my colleague on this side of the House formally laid out the practical problems we have seen 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.

We oppose the bill on the grounds that it complicates existing arms control mechanisms that are working extremely well at present, and that, in the process, it introduces substantial problems for responsible, law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. I want to take this opportunity to discuss some issues we have in terms of this proposed legislation.

In real terms, Canada already has a strong and effective system of arms control that in practical effect exceeds the system proposed by the UN treaty. The current system includes the Trade Controls Bureau, which, through the responsible minister, has the ability to prevent us from supplying military equipment to countries where those exports might threaten Canadian security, or in cases where the weapons could be used in an internal or external conflict in general. The current system also includes provisions that allow a complete ban on trade with high-risk countries. Further, it is currently set that the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, and Statistics Canada collect all such information on goods exported from Canada.

Some might argue that signing on to this UN treaty is important to aligning Canada with other nations. In previous deliberations on this legislation, though, one of the members opposite referenced the nations that had initially signed on to this treaty. However, if we look at the 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. Therefore, in actual fact, this treaty is not at all about establishing an effective international regime that we can all align with.

At best, despite amendments, we are in a place where Canadians know one thing for sure, that they cannot trust the government on firearms legislation. We are at that point yet again. Despite earlier attempts through Bill C-47, the government has failed to recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership and has moved to create all sorts of unnecessary problems and red tape for responsible firearms owners.

This legislation effectively recreates the federal gun registry by requiring the tracking of all imported and exported firearms, and requires that information be available to the minister for six years. Firearms groups and individual owners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the implications of this. They want a strong system of arms control, but they point out that 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 in Canada. A firearm that is considered legal today could be considered illegal tomorrow, without even the due process of an order in council.

Let us address the trust issue that many law-abiding Canadians have with the government. With respect to the Liberals' new gun legislation, Bill C-71, it does nothing to address real crime and gun violence. It is essentially a regulatory bill, not a public safety bill. What is apparent is that it was drafted without any thought of what it would do to law-abiding firearms owners, like farmers, hunters, collectors, and sport shooters. There is nothing in that proposed legislation that addresses any of the real gang and gun problems facing Canadian families, police, rural communities, first nations, inner cities, border agents, or the issue of rural crime.

Legislation should be about the values and merits of what Canadians need to improve their quality of life, what they need to protect their communities. Legislation should be about empowering people to prosper, not the Liberal Party.

We have heard what Canadians need for safer communities. In ridings like mine with vast rural areas, police can sometimes be hours away. Rural Canadians often feel they are left to fend for themselves. With crime rates increasing by 41% in rural parts of Canada over the last few years, the bill would do nothing to address the needs of rural Canada. However, it has the potential to turn rural Canadians into criminals if they own a firearm.

The reality is that many Canadians have firearms because of where they live and because their livelihood depends on it. Many need a firearm to deal with aggressive predators and to protect their livestock. Others need it for their work, like farmers who might have to put down an animal or control rodents. Sadly, in some rural communities, due to excessive crime, some Canadians feel they need firearms to defend themselves. There are many reasons that rural Canadians need firearms, and they own them legitimately.

Recently at a summit on guns and gangs, police referenced the increasing number of gangs involved in gun violence. This violence often stems from drug related crimes, with shootings often related to gangs protecting their territory. Guns acquired by drug dealers and gang members are almost always acquired through the black market, via smuggling and theft. We know that those involved in gang related shootings do not register their guns; they do not get a licence to own a firearm. They will not show a licence to buy a firearm; they do not go through a background check. They do not submit to police scrutiny. The only people who do that are law-abiding Canadians.

Adding more processes and background checks for law-abiding citizens would do nothing to effectively combat gang related gun violence. Nothing the Liberals have proposed will deal effectively with gangs and their acquisition of illegal weapons, and there is no mention even of gangs, organized crime, or smuggling in the bill.

I talk about all of that because we have a piece of legislation before us that is supposed to work to ensure that international dealings and trade in arms is done responsibly, and that when Canada is exporting weapons or other types of military equipment, we ensure that it is done in a responsible way.

However, there are three problems. The UN treaty does not do that. In fact, what we currently have in place in Canada is extremely effective, and we have already discussed a number of times the already effective way that we export firearms. One wonders, therefore, why are the Liberals so intent on ratifying this agreement.

There are six main arms dealers in the world and three of them have not even signed onto this. We know that the government is quite fascinated with doing things the UN wants, not always thinking about what is in the best interests of Canadians or people who are affected by what the UN says and does. We know that the Liberals like to take their direction from the UN.

In this case it is going to have a negative effect on law-abiding Canadians. Indeed, because of what we have previously seen in Bill C-71 and from the Liberal government generally, members will know that the Liberals introduced the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry and that firearms owners in Canada have been battling with the Liberals for years and years. Liberals think that law-abiding gun owners are criminals.

The bottom line is that Canadian firearms owners just do not trust the Liberals when it comes to any kind of legislation around firearms. In this case, our regime has been adequate. Fulfilling a political promise is one of the reasons I think the Liberals want to do this, because the Prime Minister said he would ratify this particular agreement. However, we know that he made a whole lot of promises without actually thinking through the implications and that he has broken the majority of them.

The NDP have their reasons and we have ours, but I do not think anybody would be heartbroken or surprised if the Liberals just scrapped this. This bill is not a good bill. It is not going to do anything to effectively combat illegal parts of the international gun trade with our best interests in mind.

The big six arms trading countries are Russia, China, the United States, France, Germany, and the U.K. I will wind up by noting that the countries that are not part of the arms trade treaty include North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China. Here, I would say that there is sort of theme with the government in who it likes to challenge and who it just kind of lets go to do their own thing.

I thank the House for this opportunity. I believe very strongly that we just need to scrap this piece of legislation and get on with the business of actually doing things to control illegitimate, gang related gun crime.

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

Madam Speaker, it does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not want to see Canada play a leadership role in the world. They never aspired to do this in their time in government.

I heard the member use the word “adequate” to describe our export control system. Our government aspires to something much more than adequate in the way we portray ourselves domestically and abroad.

Finally, this bill will do nothing that affects law-abiding gun owners. I will have the chance to explain more in my coming intervention.

This bill does three things to an already adequate export control system for Canada. It codifies in legislation the criteria by which decisions must be made, including peace and security considerations, human rights, and things like gender-based violence. I would hope that my colleague across the way would see the value of Canada considering such things. The bill also regulates the brokering of arms sales so that brokers must maintain that same level of scrutiny. As well, it adds a substantial risk test to make sure that when arms are sold into conflict zones, there is not a substantial risk that the criteria I just mentioned are contravened.

I would hope that she would agree that these are valuable regulatory aspects that Canada should take a leadership role in.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that everyone in this House, regardless of gender, is opposed to gender-based violence. It is time we moved on from the identity politics thing that somehow a woman should be standing up for gender issues. I think we would all definitely agree that when we look around the world and see where people are being victimized, we want to see that stopped, whether or not it is with respect to firearms and weapons being sold and traded.

Here is the problem. My colleague had a problem with the fact that I said our system is adequate. If the Liberals were proposing something would have a global effect on the arms trade and would be a better system, we would all be for it. However, as the Liberals normally do, this is not making our system any better. Therefore, if they want to improve our system, they should have come forward with real suggestions, like maybe talking tough to Iran or China, or using some levers that we have to address some of the horrible things that are going on internationally, rather than penalizing Canadian gun owners by using the system with a UN declaration. Here we have the UN again telling a country like Canada, which is extremely responsible, what to do.

I would welcome improvements. However, there are no improvements in this legislation. It will just affect and hurt Canadian men and women.

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way said that Russia and China are not part of the agreement or pact. It is interesting that she would be pointing that out and suggesting that Canada should join Russia and China and not be a part of it. I take no offence to what it is she is trying to infer, but from where I was sitting, it sure sounded like that was what she was trying to imply. She might want to reflect on those particular comments.

The other thing I want to raise is this, and maybe the member could provide a response. If we look at the record-keeping requirements in Bill C-47, they are the same as those when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister and the requirements that were in place prior to him. Would she not agree that those records are actually positive things to keep?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by asking my hon. colleague to reflect on this. Canada in no, way, shape or form can ever be compared to Russia or China in terms of our freedom, rule of law, and human rights.

The Liberals want us to sign onto agreements that would penalize our law-abiding firearms owners, as well as dumb down what we already have in place, just because the UN said we should. This is something I know the Liberals find hard to figure out. They just want to join agreements because then they can say that we are in an agreement, even though this does nothing to help the global problem because all of the people who are causing the big problems are not part of the agreement.

The Liberals always want to put Canada in a tough situation where we look bad, which is hard on us, just so they can say we are in another agreement. It is not good governance.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-47. Through this bill, our government is going to move forward on an important commitment that we made to Canadians to ensure that Canada fully accedes to the Arms Trade Treaty. The ATT sets an essential standard for the international community to contribute to international and regional peace, security, and stability, and to promote co-operation, transparency, and responsible actions by countries.

I am also proud of the amendments that the foreign affairs committee has made to the bill. We heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the ATT criteria placed directly into legislation, including the considerations of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence. Therefore, the government supported the committee in making these changes.

We have also made a significant change to the proposed legislation by including a substantial risk test. That would mean that for the first time there would be a direct legal requirement for the government to refuse export permits for items where there is a substantial risk that they would be used to violate the criteria. Bill C-47 would strengthen our arms export system and finally allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.

During its study of Bill C-47, the committee considered the issue of the NDP motion. It chose not to accept the amendment. The amendment we are discussing would require the minister to reconsider the risk of arms that have already been issued export permits, based on “any information that could affect the original determination”. The fact of the matter is, this power already exists. Under the current law, if new information emerges after a permit has been authorized, and before all of the goods and technology covered by that permit have been exported, the minister already possesses the power to amend, suspend, cancel, or reinstate any permit issued. Global Affairs Canada has even released a recent example of this power in action.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on February 9, Global Affairs Canada conducted a thorough investigation last summer into the state of security in Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia.

The committee found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used to commit human rights violations. That was—

Suspension of Sitting

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. As a result of the fire alarm, the House will now be suspended to the call of the Chair. Therefore, I would ask individuals to exit the Chamber.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 12:45 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 1:15 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are ready to continue.

At the point where we were interrupted by the fire alarm, the hon. member had seven minutes for his speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before the interruption, as part of its investigation last summer, Global Affairs Canada found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used to commit human rights violations. That was the independent and objective finding of our public service.

Export licences for these vehicles were immediately halted on receipt of information shared by the Canadian Embassy in Riyadh.

I can assure the member opposite that this power of suspension would be used again if and when necessary.

The proposed amendment by the member also does not reflect the text or spirit of the ATT. The text of the ATT states:

If, after an authorization has been granted, an exporting State Party becomes aware of new relevant information, it is encouraged to reassess the authorization

That is the authority that the Minister of Foreign Affairs currently has and exercises.

The motion before us is broader than anything contemplated by the treaty. It would also significantly create additional administrative risk and could impact the competitiveness of Canadian industry. This is in contrast to the current approach, which employs an evidence-based risk assessment, allowing resources and attention to focus on higher-risk export destinations, and sensitive goods and technologies.

Imposing a legislative requirement in order to call for a review every time without first considering the veracity or reliability of the information could burden export control operations, cause uncertainty, and impose an extra administrative burden on both the Canadian industry and government, which is responsible for the regulations.

This amendment could also have the detrimental effect of resulting in higher-risk cases not receiving the proper attention they require. In that sense, not only would it be redundant but it could also be harmful.

Let me turn now to the deletion motion put forward by the Conservatives.

I will state clearly that Bill C-47 would not impact domestic gun laws, it would not affect gun controls in Canada, and it would not create a new gun registry. In fact, the ATT preamble recognizes the “legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities”.

The objective of the ATT is to ensure that international trade in conventional arms does not contribute to international conflict and instability or to violations of human rights. It does not target the lawful, responsible use of firearms, nor does it prevent the lawful, responsible sale, export, or import of weapons.

Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone on this side of the floor that the Conservatives are choosing to ignore the reality of Bill C-47 and are instead seeking to scare Canadians by pretending that this bill would do something that it would not in fact do, and it will come as no surprise to Canadians that the Conservatives are once again placing partisan politics above human rights. This is exactly the sort of politics that Canadians voted to get rid of in 2015.

The reality is that parts of the Export and Import Permits Act dealing with record-keeping have been in effect in Canada for years. In fact, they were in effect under the former government and under governments preceding that. Why did the former government not try to change it during its 10 years? It is because the reality is that Canadians have no issues with these parts of the Export and Import Permits Act.

Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said that:

...the keeping of and retention of records by importers, exporters, firearms dealers, and end-users for defined periods of time that is referred to in the bill, without being required to turn these records over to the government on demand, is something that most in the industry already do for insurance and other purposes.

All clause 11 would do is add the term “organization” to the existing authorities to ensure that organizations would also be subject to existing record keeping requirements. This clause would simply remove the clarity that organizations would also require permits. In fact, the committee inserted a “for greater certainty” clause into the bill to make it crystal clear that the changes to the EIPA would not affect domestic gun use or control.

However, here we are, once again, with the Conservatives trying to delete this clause, which directly addresses the very concerns they are raising.

Our government is proud of the important commitment we have made with Bill C-47. The bill would amend the Export and Import Permits Act to allow Canada to accede, finally, to the Arms Trade Treaty.

This treaty is the first to address the illicit trade in conventional arms. It establishes an essential standard for the international community. It is high time that Canada joined the many NATO and G7 partners by acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty.

The bill before the House today would place Canada at the forefront of our allies and partners in implementing the spirit and letter of the Arms Trade Treaty, and it would allow Canada to hold itself to a higher standard on the export of arms.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree completely with what the parliamentary secretary is proposing in the legislation.

We have to remember that Canada already has a very vigilant system of export permits on any military equipment and security weapons that are exported. What the Liberals are planning to do is add more bureaucracy. I would like to give an example.

Right now in Winnipeg, we have a company called PGW Defence. It is one of the best firearms manufacturers in Canada, if not the world. It builds the best sniper rifles in the world, which are sold to our allies. The company is already in real crisis because Global Affairs Canada has been dragging its feet on signing export permits, so it can export firearms to our allies and friends around the world to strengthen their military. Essentially, it is pushing them to the financial brink.

The Liberals want to add more red tape, which is not in the best interests of this company, not in the best interests of people who work for that company in Winnipeg, and it is definitely not in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces that depend on that company for a supply of sniper rifles.

Will the parliamentary secretary admit that the Liberals are just going to put more red tape on Canadian manufacturers, putting them at a disadvantage to competitors around the world?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will not do that.

This bill in no way suggests or actually in reality leads to what the member opposite is claiming. We recognize, fully, the industrial base that the manufacturing and sale of conventional weapons has in Canada. Significant consultation with that sector has been undertaken in the drafting, and in some of the revision, that has gone into the bill, after we heard from committee members and witnesses at the committee stage.

What the bill would do is add to an already robust import and export realm in Canada to ensure certain criteria dealing with peace and security considerations, the upholding of human rights, and important things like gender-based violence are taken into consideration and encoded right in the legislation when the minister makes decisions about issuing an export permit.

I would hope members opposite support that sort of goal and aim, to ensure that human rights are upheld, that sexual violence and gender-based violence committed to vulnerable populations around the world is taken into considerable account, with a substantial risk test on top of that, including brokers, to ensure that Canada takes a leadership role in areas of conflict around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, robust export and import rules that enable us to export to Saudi Arabia, have Canadian producers sell arms to South Sudan or send helicopters to the Philippines, we have a different definition of strong.

The main point I wanted to make is that my colleague seemed to suggest that we would be voting against this bill for partisan reasons. Our reasons echo the reasons given by experts, who are all saying that this is a botched bill and it should be thrown out. Project Ploughshares, the Control Arms Coalition, and the Rideau Institute, to name just a few, all agree that this bill does not reflect the spirit or the letter of the treaty.

The Liberals say they prefer evidence-based policy, so why are they ignoring the opinions of experts?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, we took expert input into account. They told us in committee that they thought the criteria should be inserted directly into the legislation, so that is what we did. They told us we need stricter controls over arms exports in order to determine the potential risk of these arms being used to violate human rights or commit atrocities. This bill provides those stricter controls.

We are hearing the NDP, which stood on principle and said that Canada should adhere to the ATT, now suggesting it is going to vote against a bill that would allow Canada to live up to both the letter and the spirit of that treaty.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address this very positive legislation. Once again, we have before us another legislative initiative that will put in place a commitment we made to the Canadian people back in the last federal election.

We now have been in government for just over two and a half years. Every week it seems we are fulfilling another aspect of the platform that was presented to Canadians and voted on by them. We are putting these things into place.

It was interesting listening to the debate from the Conservatives and the New Democrats. The words that come to mind are are “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The Conservatives are very clear; they do not like the legislation. For whatever reason, however misguided they might be, they have decided they are not in favour of this legislation. That does not surprise me. What does surprise me is what my New Democrat friends have had to say. In listening to the member, the critic, speak on this, one could draw the conclusion that they too do not support the legislation.

This reminds me of that unholy alliance that we see time and again between the New Democrats and the Conservatives. They do not want to see progressive, positive legislation pass through the chamber. If they were listening to what Canadians expect and want to see of good government, they would recognize this legislation for what it is. It is very positive and it will have a positive impact not only in Canada but around the world.

Canada is such a fortunate country. We live in such a privileged place, with opportunity for our population base of between 36 and 37 million people. We carry a great deal of clout around the world. Many countries from around the world look at the types of policies Canada develops and the kind of leadership we demonstrate.

On this file, the arms trade treaty, it is disappointing how long it has taken for us to see it come to fruition. Contrary to what the Conservatives and the New Democrats will say, I believe this legislation will pass. Why? Not only did we make a commitment to it in the last federal election, but we have the support of Canadians in all regions of the country who want to see Canada continue to play that strong national leadership role.

Other G7 countries have already signed onto the Arms Trade Treaty. I think Canada might be alone on that. As well, we could talk about the NATO countries. We are way behind in what other NATO countries have already done in recognizing the value of this agreement.

With the passage of the legislation, in essence we are signing onto an agreement that will make a difference. It is not to take anything away. My friend from across the way, a Conservative from Manitoba, talked about an industry in the city of Winnipeg. It is not only snipers or weapons that are made in Canada or, in this case, in Winnipeg. Many other aspects of military hardware are developed and put into factories, which produce fantastic middle-class jobs that provide all sorts of economic opportunity. In many areas, we are world leaders on some of that production, development, and research in this whole field.

That said, we also have a responsibility that goes beyond just exporting for the sake of exporting or importing for the sake of importing. To me, in good part that is what this legislation is about. We have had import and export legislation for many years.

The Conservative opposition House leader, the member for Portage—Lisgar, talks a great deal about the issue of guns and restrictions, and tries to give a false impression. Again, just listen to what the Conservative Party is saying here in Ottawa, which appears to be that their concern and primary objection is that there are too many restrictions being put in place on possible gun ownership by an expanding bureaucracy. However, the legislation has not really changed what already exists. There might have been a word changed from the way it was when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister, but it is non-consequential. In fact, it was Brian Mulroney who put in a lot of those regulations we are talking about and reinforcing today.

The Export and Import Permits Act actually came into force back in 1985. When the Conservatives try to give a false impression to legitimate gun owners that somehow this government is trying to put into place some form of registration or bureaucracy, it is just not true. The member across the way said that it was 100%, and it is just not true. It does not bother them to stand in their place to state something that is not true. Not only will they say it inside the chamber, but also outside of it, even if we point out that it is not true. Irrespective of whether or not ministers and others who have been very clear on the issue point this out, the opposition members continue to spread these myths and untruths because they have turned it into a political issue. For them, it is not as much about public safety or even providing more peace and assurances throughout the world, but all about politics and raising money from an issue they believe they can stay on top of and thus make money from via fundraising. I find that somewhat sad.

At the end of the day, I do not really understand what specifically it is about the legislation that the Conservatives believe Canadians would oppose. They say it is the bureaucracy that will result, but they do not substantiate that in any tangible way. They are simply going to oppose the legislation.

On the other hand, my New Democratic friends are criticizing us in terms of consistency. I remember the former leader of the New Democratic Party saying to a crowd of people that he would honour the agreement with Saudi Arabia. Today, New Democrats criticize the government about Saudi Arabia, but during an election period the leader of the New Democratic Party said he would do the very same thing. There are inconsistencies within the New Democratic Party on this very important issue.

I am suggesting that members should recognize this legislation for what it is, that it will have a profoundly positive impact. It will demonstrate that Canada can provide world leadership on the Arms Trade Treaty through import and export legislation. That is a good thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy it when my friend speaks extemporaneously because it is usually based more on hyperbole than on fact. The challenge we face with the government is that we have two bills, Bill C-47, which we are debating today, and, I would suggest, its companion, Bill C-71, the Liberals' way for reintroducing the long-gun registry via the backdoor. He claims he is not doing that, but Bill C-71 requires record taking, this time not at the home, but at the store, and record retention.

Now by bringing in brokers with respect to Bill C-47, the Liberals are essentially allowing for a UN-led long-gun registry. Several Liberal members, such as for Kenora, Northumberland—Peterborough South, Peterborough—Kawartha, know that people did not like the divisive approach of the Allan Rock gun registry. Now the Liberals are bringing it back by stealth through two pieces of legislation.

If the member is sincere with respect to Bill C-47, will he use his immense influence in the caucus to pull back Bill C-71 so we can say that they are not tied together?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way is fairly knowledgeable about House proceedings and today we are debating Bill C-47. That said, we have told the Conservative members that what they are saying is just not true. It is factually incorrect. One would think that our bluntness would make them stop telling those untruths, but they do not. A case in point is the question by the member opposite.

I do not know what more the government can do to try to say to the official opposition that if they listened to what Canadians are saying, that the type of legislation we are passing today is based on the fact that we made a commitment to bring in such legislation, they would recognize the value it provides. It provides Canada with an opportunity not only to protect a very important industry in different regions of our country, but also allows us to continue to be strong advocates of human rights and peace initiatives around the world. There is so much more that Canada can do in terms of world leadership, and this is one of those pieces of legislation that feeds into that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that the Conservatives tend to stand on this and many other bills and speak about the myths of pieces of legislation and to base most of their argument on how they can best incite fear in Canadians. It is a sad state of our democracy that we are likely to go into the 2019 election with the Conservatives intending anywhere and anyhow they can to try to instill fear in the minds of Canadians. It was not successful in 2015 and I know that Canadians will likely be inclined to reject that again in a year and a half's time.

Does my hon. colleague think there is significant value in codifying into legislation criteria around the import and export of arms that would make sure that when we sign an export permit, the current foreign minister and all future foreign ministers will take into consideration issues of peace and security and stabilization in countries, human rights, and things like gender-based violence, and the diversion of conventional weapons—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, I do have to allow the member to answer. I would ask members to keep their interventions short when asking their questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has about 35 seconds to reply.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I think the parliamentary secretary is right on. When we think of Canadian values and the issues of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence, the way forward is to pass this legislation with its legal obligations and risk test, which reflect the types of things I have mentioned. That is why I would encourage my New Democratic friends, in particular, to rethink their position and possibly support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy debates because sometimes I have a few notes prepared for them. However, if Canadians are watching this debate, it is better for me to rebut some of the ridiculous positions just outlined by the deputy House leader for the Liberal Party and so ably and ridiculously outlined by the parliamentary secretary.

If Canadians are concerned about why Bill C-47 is before this House and perhaps why Canada did not sign onto the UN Arms Trade Treaty, I will explain why that did not happen under the former Conservative government. I will also explain our concerns about Bill C-47 and its companion bill, Bill C-71, which has sports shooters, lawful gun owners, and hunters concerned about a return to an Allan Rock style of gun registry of the past. These are valid concerns, and I am going to show why reasonable questions have been asked of the current government by Canadians, but have been ignored. Not only have they been ignored, but the Liberals are also trying to create a wedge between urban and rural Canada, the same old things we saw from Allan Rock and Jean Chrétien decades ago.

In their remarks, the Liberals have said that the Conservatives are saying things that are not true. My friend said it is crystal clear that the lawful use of firearms would not be caught up in Bill C-47 and Bill C-71. I am going to explain why the former Conservative government did not sign onto the UN ATT. I would note that several other countries have not done so either.

As we heard at committee from Steve Torino, who was involved at the time with the Canadian delegation and the advisers to the government on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, Canada was consistently asking for a carve-out for the lawful and cultural use of firearms by hunters, aboriginal Canadians, and sports shooters. Canada was consistently advocating for a specific carve-out in the body of the treaty. Canada under the Conservative government did not just roll over. We expressed our desire to see an outcome that was fair to our citizens. We could not get that, so we kept pushing. The current government rolled over, and there was no such provision in the UN treaty. In fact, the only reference to the lawful use went in the preamble to the treaty, which states:

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.

Unfortunately, a reference in the preamble is not a specific treaty provision or section. It is insufficient. In fact, I quoted University of Toronto law professor, Kent Roach, at committee and I will quote him to this House to say that it is a mug's game to rely on a preamble. The parliamentary secretary seems to think it is sufficient. Professor Roach said this about preambles:

Preambles can oversell legislation either by expressing unrealistic hopes that are not always supported by the fine print or the text of the law or by suggesting that “we can have it all”.

Therefore, only fools rely on preambles, and we have heard a good dose of their perspective here this morning.

As a lawyer, I want to see something in the print of the treaty. That is what Canada was pushing for, and we should not sign treaties until we are satisfied that aboriginal use of firearms, hunting, and traditional and cultural uses are considered to be fair and that some of the most lawful Canadians who do so are respected. These same Canadians have asked the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals to provide that same specific exemption in Bill C-47. In fact, Greg Farrant from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Steve Torino, as I mentioned, were working on these. Our committee acknowledged that it would be reasonable to put this provision directly in Bill C-47, because we cannot rely on the preamble at law. That did not happen. Indeed, the Conservatives were prepared to work with the government on Bill C-47 if we could get that bare-bones, reasonable assurance. Therefore, when the Liberals stand in the House and suggest that we are misleading Canadians or that we are not telling the truth, I will go to any of their ridings and have this same conversation there, because I am not using talking points from the Prime Minister's Office.

I know this bill and the history of it, and what Canada was asking for is reasonable. It is reasonable to say that first nations can continue to use rifles and to do their traditional hunt. That is protected by Supreme Court decisions. With respect to lawful ownership in Canada, some of our most law-abiding citizens use their right responsibly.

Once again, Bill C-47, with its companion Bill C-71, sets up this dynamic in which the Liberals are trying to portray some Canadians as being unreasonable or as being risks, and that is divisive.

What is also divisive is the suggestion that without the bill, we would be able to sell arms to countries where there is gender-based violence or human rights crimes. In fact, Wendy Gilmour, who is the director general of the government department that manages the country control list and these controlled goods, said clearly at committee that the ability to control exports based on sanction, human rights abuse, and violence, and therefore to preclude arms sales, has existed since 1986. In fact, she referred to the memo from Joe Clark on the ability to stop arms sales in these circumstances. Last I checked, he was a Conservative member of Parliament at the time.

It is misleading Canadians to suggest that without Bill C-47, we are suddenly going to be selling arms in situations where there is ethnic cleansing or gender-based violence. Once again, that is misleading and unfair, and I would invite the parliamentary secretary to look at the committee transcripts wherein his senior official acknowledges that this has been true since 1986.

In fact, in my last speech on this issue, I noted that since the 1940s, Canada has had a superior arms control regulatory regime compared to the ATT. It is superior on many fronts. In fact, the area control list right now only contains one country, which is North Korea. However, for decades, through legislation and regulation, we have had the ability to stop all trade of all goods with any country. Wendy Gilmour, the deputy general, acknowledged this in committee, when she said:

Indeed. The purpose of the area control list is to give the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Government of Canada the ability to control, but not necessarily restrict, the movement of any items to a country listed on the [area control list].

For decades, we have been able to responsibly control the movement of military goods and nuclear materials. Canada has actually been a leader in this.

Since 1986, with the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, we have also been able to restrict based on concerns with respect to human rights abuses, and a range of other things. Canada is a responsible player. Therefore, when the government puts up Bill C-47 and its companion Bill C-71 to once again sow division, it is doing so based on a premise that is not only false, but it is misleading. If it thinks that a preamble provides the appropriate protection for the lawful use of firearms by Canadians and indigenous Canadians, it is showing it does not understand that it should fight for Canadian interests when it is negotiating an international treaty. Furthermore, since Bill C-71 is being brought in shortly after Bill C-47, there are real concerns by some Canadians that the government is bringing back the gun registry of the Chrétien-Rock era and it will be providing for the provision of records, or this same approach to the United Nations.

That is terrible. Canada should be very proud of the fact that we have one of the most responsible regimes for the trade of military-type goods and controlled goods, and we have had it since the 1940s. In fact, this week in Ottawa, we are going to see the defence and security industry at the CANSEC show. It will include tens of thousands of Canadians who work in the defence and security industries. We have been a world leader on satellite technology and aerospace. We were the third or fourth country to have controlled nuclear fission. We are leaders in these technologies, and we are also leaders when it comes to regulation.

I would like to see the Liberal government stop this divisive, inaccurate, and biased approach to legislation. I would be happy to come to Liberal ridings to debate these things, and not just in the House of Commons. These are the facts, and this is why we have concerns about both of these bills.

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

Madam Speaker, there is disinformation laden throughout the member's speech. Let me try to deal with a few pieces of it. First, it is clear in the ATT itself, and in Bill C-47, that in no way would this affect law-abiding gun owners domestically in Canada. Everything that the member opposite spoke about, the use of guns by law-abiding gun owners for recreation and social purposes in Canada, is not affected in any way by our accession to the ATT, and the Conservatives should stop spreading misinformation about that to Canadians.

Second, with respect to the aspects of the export and import permits act that allow the minister to consider certain criteria, they have been around since 1986, but they have not been codified in legislation, and there is no legal requirement. Does the member opposite intend to tell me that he does not think it should be a legal requirement for a minister to consider grave atrocities, peace and security situations, the upholding of human rights, and aspects of gender-based violence in the export of conventional arms? Should that not be a legal requirement for this government and any future government?

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member started with reference to disinformation just before he acknowledged I was right when it comes to 1986 provisions that can prevent the sale of any of these controlled goods to countries for all those reasons.

I was very offended by the fact that he suggested Canada could be selling weapons to countries gripped by gender-based violence. He is making that emotional appeal, which is what the Liberals do, based on a faulty and misleading record. Since 1986, this has been policy of the federal government.

I also mentioned the area control list. If they were concerned about a country, or several countries in particular, they could ban all trade with those countries under existing regulations now. We did not have to wait until the United Nations told us how to do this. We were doing this before the United Nations was even created.

When it comes to reasonable concerns that lawful firearms owners, first nations, hunters, and all these people, have had, they have made a reasonable request for a specific carve-out in the legislation. That is why the Conservatives did not sign on to the treaty. We want a black and white carve-out. The preamble is a fool's game. The member represents Fredericton. There is a great law school, UNB, located there. I would refer him to some first-year law students at the law school to tell him whether a preamble is enough when he is negotiating on behalf of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Durham for his excellent speech, and for pointing out the reality of what is in the bill. The preamble is nothing but window dressing, and we cannot have best wishes working their way into the substance of the bill. When this becomes law, the judges and courts are going to be looking at the meat and potatoes, which are the clauses of the act. They clearly outline that anyone who is buying a firearm in our country will not only be subject to having its serial number registered with the Government of Canada, but it will be registered with the United Nations. It clearly outlines that anyone who wants to import firearms may not have that ability to do so, because American companies in particular would not want to mark their firearms in the way that the UN treaty demands.

It also would put our military defensive weapon manufacturers at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world, because it is about more bureaucracy, more red tape, and an inability to move their firearms to our friends and allies, who are often fighting for the same democratic values that we hold as Canadians. I would ask my colleague, who is a veteran himself, if he could comment on how this could undermine our own Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, because I think the Conservative government's concern with the UN ATT was related to the fact that cultural and lawful uses by indigenous Canadians and licensed Canadians was not being respected by legislation. For Canadians to think about this, would they like the protection on their home sale to rely just on an email that the lawyer sends the contract with, or on the contract itself? They would want that provision in law. That is why I cited Professor Roach from the U of T law school saying that preambles cannot be relied upon.

However, what is concerning is that all the federation of anglers and hunters and sports shooters wanted was a reasonable provision saying that the cultural and lawful use would be excluded from the bill. Not only was that ignored by the government, it then brought in Bill C-71, which is creating a new registry through the store system. Not only has the goodwill of all groups that wanted to pass Bill C-47 with these assurances in place been ignored by the Liberals, but they set up Bill C-71, which they premised upon guns and gangs; however, there is nothing in there for illegally smuggled weapons. At the same time, they are hurting our defence and security industries, as my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman pointed out, in stopping lawful sales by our suppliers, at a time when if we lose this ability, we will lose suppliers for our own military.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments), as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed your reading of the amendments and I think you did a splendid job getting through them all. I hear a member opposite saying “on division”. These are two of my favourite words spoken in this Parliament. I will want to see those recorded votes when they happen.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-47, which is a bill that would implement an international arms control treaty. In preparation for speaking on this bill, I went through past interventions given by other members in which they contributed their thoughts as to the impact that the bill will have on their constituents. I went through the intervention from the member for Portage—Lisgar on this particular bill, and that is where I would like to begin.

I am going to refer to the bill as the companion bill to Bill C-71, which is a piece of firearms legislation that the government has introduced as well. I do not think we can look at either of the bills separately. I look at the bills as logically following one from the other. They have the same idea behind them.

In the intervention, the member said:

At best, despite amendments, we are in a place where Canadians...cannot trust the government on firearms...Despite earlier attempts through Bill C-47, the government has failed to recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership and has moved to create all sorts of unnecessary problems and red tape for responsible firearms owners.

We see in the companion bill to Bill C-47, which is Bill C-71, that in fact the government is making lawful and legitimate firearms ownership more complicated, more complex, and more difficult for Canadians.

Firearms ownership allows Canadians to hunt and participate in sports like sharpshooting, and to prepare for biathlon. This is a part of our inheritance and heritage that Canadians enjoy. There are Canadians who have been doing these types of activities for generations in Canada. It is a great part of our Canadian history and it is part of our dual national history. Both French Canadians and English Canadians have been participating in these types of activities and have contributed to the growth of Canada's lands in a dominion that formed our great Confederation.

Another member said about Bill C-47:

Most critically, it effectively recreates the federal gun registry by requiring the tracking of all imported and exported firearms and requires that the 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 concerns about the implications of [those six years]. They want a strong system of arms control, but they point out that in fact we already have one.

We know that many of the provisions that are being proposed in this ATT are already being done. There is nothing really new here. We know there is already tracking and recording, and more of it is being done right now. The 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. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves why we are implementing a treaty that will simply add onto red tape and the bureaucracy that we already have here in Ottawa.

The previous member I spoke of also went into some of the details. Both the ATT and its companion bill, Bill C-71, do not mention organized crime and will, in fact, do nothing to stop gangsters from obtaining firearms in Canada and using them in their illicit activities, because people who do not obey the law today and who participate in gangsterism and gang activities will not obey the law either way. They are earning their living through illicit activities like counterfeiting and human trafficking, so they will not be interested in caring about the contents of Bill C-47 and its companion bill, Bill C-71. This is simply more bureaucracy and more red tape being imposed on law-abiding Canadians, who of course are going to try their best to obey the law.

An argument that could be made too on Bill C-47 is that it is actually going to impose restrictions on the Department of National Defence, which is traditionally exempted from the export control system so as to be able to provide military aid or government-to-government gifts, such as the loaning or gifting of equipment to another government or a potential ally that we are supporting.

In spending this past weekend at the spring session of the NATO organizations meetings in Poland, I was able to hear from other member states that are looking forward to receiving more support from the Canadian government, Ukraine and Georgia. Our allies in the Baltic states are all hoping to see Canada step up and provide more support. They are satisfied with what we have done up to now, but they want to see more of it, so how does it make it simpler for us to add the Department of National Defence to the list of those who have to comply with this export control treaty?

In fact, it will make it more complicated and more bureaucratic. There will be more red tape involved in trying to support our allies in NATO, and it does not help in any way. That is in article 5 of the ATT.

There are other countries we could be supporting as well. We may want to provide them with additional support. I remember that in the past two and a half years the Canadian government said it would support the Kurdistan Regional Government's fight versus ISIS. I am privileged to chair in this House the pro-Kurdish group, the Parliamentary Friends of the Kurds. I have spoken to many Kurdish leaders, both in Canada and outside of Canada, including Syrian leaders and others, who at one point were promised they would be able to obtain Canadian weapons to support the fight versus Daesh. Those weapons eventually never came.

Would it have made it simpler to impose more red tape, more arms controls on people we are supporting publicly and encouraging to take the fight directly to terrorist organizations like Daesh, which were trying to set up a proto-state? No, it would not. That is my concern with treaties such as this one, which I will be opposing and happily voting against.

There is a Yiddish proverb that goes, “Uphill we always climb with caution, downhill we dash, carefree.” I am afraid we are dashing carefree down this hill. There is the perception that more government, more red tape, and more bureaucracy makes us safer, makes our communities better, and achieves some type of vague public policy goal whereby more government equals greater safety for Canadians. Tell that to rural Canadians. Tell that to people who live just south of my riding, who are afraid enough at night that they turn off their porch lights so people do not know their homes are there. That way, they do not have to deal with Calgary gangsters coming out to rural communities to commit crimes, to invade their homes and steal their property because it is easier than doing it in the city because there are fewer police officers in our rural communities. It is just a fact of life that there are fewer people and fewer police officers. It is simple logic. It just happens that way.

I hear the member for Foothills saying it is in his riding, and there are many members with ridings next to each other. My kids actually go to school in his riding. This is something rural Canadians have to deal with. How would Bill C-47 help them? It would not. It would not make life any easier for them, and neither would the companion bill, Bill C-71.

Law-abiding Canadians are going to keep abiding by the law. They are going to obey the law. We can count on firearms owners to do just that every single time. Therefore, why are we dashing carefree down that hill, expecting that more government, more bureaucracy, more red tape at the bottom of the hill will somehow keep us safer? They can introduce all the rules they want in the world, and it still will not help.

The Speaker is giving me the sign that I have one minute left, and here I was going to read to the chamber the list of states that have neither signed nor acceded to the ATT and the states that have signed but not yet ratified the ATT. It would have been riveting reading for the members of this House to understand exactly the number of states that are not participating in this treaty. Many of those who will not be participating in this treaty are arms dealers and many of them share weapons among themselves. They are not regimes that can be expected to obey any type of international law in the near future. For the most part, these are regimes we do not count among our friends, either. The governments that will obey this agreement are law-abiding, lawful western governments, and this measure would be restricting their ability to support their allies overseas.

I will be happily voting against this bill—it is a bad bill—as well as the companion bill, Bill C-71, and I look forward to the debate in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what my friend from Calgary Shepard said by pointing out that Conservatives at the committee at which the bill was considered, and I am a member of that committee, put forward an amendment to try to improve the bill, an amendment that would have protected law-abiding firearms owners. We did this working with stakeholders, in good faith, and frankly, the government had given us every reason to believe that it might be open to that. We know that there were concerns among some of the rural members, some of which leaked out of caucus discussions, who are very worried about the way the government approaches firearms owners.

We put forward a reasonable amendment to try to help the government improve the bill. The member for Durham proposed an amendment that said:

The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.

That would have been a clear exclusion in the bill that would have allowed us to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty while still providing protection for firearms owners. The government, while professing to not want to go after law-abiding firearms owners through the bill, refused this amendment.

It was not, at the end of the day, about acceding to the treaty at all, because the Liberals had a choice. They could have supported a reasoned Conservative amendment to improve the legislation, yet they refused to accept that amendment. They came up with an alternative amendment that did not address the issue and that whitewashed the question.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on his comments in terms of how the government is using every opportunity, whether it is this bill or Bill C-71, to go after law-abiding firearms owners. When the Liberals could have accepted an amendment that would have addressed this issue, they refused that amendment.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we on the Conservative side propose amendments at committee, because we are trying to climb uphill, back to my Yiddish proverb. We are cautiously hoping the government will consider reasonable, rational amendments that will improve government legislation. Often, the Liberals vote them down. As happened at finance committee, the government sometimes votes them down without saying a single word.

In this case, the member is right. Our side proposed a reasonable amendment that would have provided protection for firearms owners in Canada to continue hunting and sharpshooting. It was a reasonable protection afforded to them directly in the language of the bill, not in the preamble, that would have allowed them to continue the practices of our ancestors, a generation of Canadians who have lawfully hunted for their food for subsistence or who have hunted with their kids and family members as part of their family traditions. They have participated in sharpshooting clubs on weekends and enjoyed a sport that is widely practised in Canada.

I do not understand why Liberal caucus members could not support such a reasonable amendment. It might be because they knew that Bill C-71, the companion bill, was coming down, and therefore, they could not bring themselves to support such a reasonable action to protect firearms owners.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, did I just hear the opposition member say that he was in contact with Syrians and people in the Middle East who asked for guns and Canada was providing them?

That is a rather troubling assertion.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member misunderstood.

I said that the Kurdistan government, in northern Iraq, had asked for help from the Government of Canada, which promised at the time to provide it. This assistance would have been used to fight Daesh. It was the Kurdistan government, in northern Iraq, that made this request. The Government of Canada tried to provide this assistance but, of course, it never did.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, who articulated so very well the issues we are facing, certainly not only in rural Alberta but in rural communities across the country.

I would like to start by telling a story about an incident that happened in my constituency not long ago. Friends of mine told me about burglars coming into their house. Their children were in the basement. It was the middle of the day. They came down the stairs to the basement, armed. Their very large 17-year-old son was able to walk up the stairs and scare these burglars off, but they were very concerned about what could have happened to their three kids who were home alone that day. Of course, the burglars did not leave empty-handed; they took four vehicles from the farm on their way out the gate.

This is what residents throughout rural Canada are facing right now: a steep increase in rural crime. The Liberal government had an opportunity over this past year to address this issue.

I was very proud to be a member of the rural crime task force, which was made up of several Conservative Alberta members of Parliament. We held town halls throughout the province over the last six or seven months. We put together a list of more than a dozen very strong recommendations that we will be presenting to the government later this spring.

Many of the messages we heard from constituents were clear, no matter which open house we attended throughout Alberta. People were asking for stiffer penalties. People were asking for action against gang violence. People were asking for action to be taken against the illegal gun trade. People were asking for programs to address mental health. So many of these crimes are just a revolving door. A criminal robs a farmyard, goes to jail, gets a minimal fine, and is back out there, sometimes in hours, sometimes within days, repeating the crime.

Not one single time did I hear from the hundreds of Albertans that what they were really looking for was not one but maybe two gun registries. They were certainly not looking for a reduction in sentences for serious crimes.

When we look at the action the Liberal government is taking, it is going in the exact opposite direction that every rural Canadian is asking for. Rural Canadians are asking for stiffer fines and penalties and jail time. Canadians are asking for resources for our police services. Canadians are asking for a focus and a priority on safe communities. They are not asking for the Liberal government to ram through three bills that go against every single message we are getting from rural Canadians.

Let us take a look at Bill C-75, reforms to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would take dozens of crimes that were federal crimes and reduce them to summary conviction offences that may receive sentences of two years less a day. These include possession of goods from crime, theft, terrorist acts, and kidnapping children under 14 years old. I do not know where the common sense comes from with such a bill.

Canadians are asking us for exactly the opposite. I have not heard from one single Canadian that we need to address rural crime by reducing sentences to solve the problem. The government is not just reducing it from 10 years but is reducing it so that they may get a fine and be back on the streets. That is exactly what we are trying to prevent. It does not make sense. It is certainly frustrating for Canadians in our rural communities to see that this is the direction the government is going.

One of the first jobs of any government, no matter what the level, is to protect its citizens. This does anything but. It sends a very poor message to Canadians across the country who are looking for their government to stand up and protect them. The Liberal government is doing the exact opposite. It is going out of its way to ensure that criminals are the ones who are the priority.

Let us take a look at Bill C-71, which is on the Firearms Act. It would do nothing to address gang violence. It would do nothing to address gun crime. It certainly would not do anything to address rural crime issues.

This is another attack on law-abiding firearms owners and establishes another back-door gun registry. I would argue that Bill C-47 is another back-door gun registry. When the Liberal government has multiple opportunities to address the real crime issue, and I am being specific about that, because that is something that hits very close to home in my constituency, the Liberals put up window dressing on taking a hard stance on violent crime and gun crime, but all they are doing is attacking law-abiding firearms owners, who are certainly not the problem.

I am going to tell another story of a man in my riding, Eddie Maurice, in Okotoks, who many members may have heard of, who is now charged with a crime. He was protecting his property and young daughter from burglars who were going through his yard, his acreage. I can guarantee that the burglars on his property had not gone to Canadian Tire to purchase their firearms and make sure they were registered.

These bills are attacking the wrong people, and that is what Conservatives are finding to be incredibly frustrating with these two bills that are being rammed through by the Liberal government.

What Canadians are looking for is a Liberal government that is going to support them. Bill C-47 would not reduce illegal weapons coming into Canada. It would not reduce rural crime, and as I said before, it would not reduce gun violence or gang violence.

I would like my Liberal colleagues, during the question and answer period, to explain to me how, with the suite of legislation they are trying to ram through by the end of this session, I can go home to my constituents and tell them with all sincerity that I feel we have taken steps to protect their homes, properties, and families. I do not believe these bills would do any of those things.

When Conservatives were in government, a similar bill was before us, but we did not follow through on signing the arms treaty, because we were concerned about the limitations and the impact it would have on law-abiding firearms owners.

I would also point out that the Liberal government had some difficulty meeting some of its promises in its first mandate, but the promise I heard, in the words of the parliamentary secretary, is that it would in no way put any government restrictions on law-abiding Canadian citizens. I would argue that these pieces of legislation would do just that. If the Liberal government were concerned about putting forward legislation that would not impact law-abiding citizens, the language in this bill should have provided a certain level of certainty and legal assurances for Canadians that this would exempt them from some of these registrations. However, it asks our law-abiding firearms owners to go through even more hoops rather than addressing what I think is the most serious issue, and that is crime, especially in rural communities.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that for any government, the safety of Canadians and our communities is paramount and should be among its top priorities. I would ask my Liberal colleagues on the other side in government to take a hard second look at what their priorities are. Instead of attacking law-abiding firearms owners, put your focus on ensuring that rural communities are safe. I will be voting against this piece of legislation, because it does not do that.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

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

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation made by my hon. colleague, a former colleague on the indigenous affairs committee.

She quoted article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in our debate on Bill C-262 when talking about the situation in Akwesasne.

It was quite interesting in this context, because article 19 talks about consultation and co-operation “in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions”.

First of all, whom does the member consider the representative institution in Akwesasne? Second, I find it curious that members cite indigenous issues and indigenous people in situations that serve their arguments but not in the situation where the House was debating a vote to support indigenous peoples and their fundamental human rights in this place.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I was pointing out was not in terms of supporting my argument; it was in terms of supporting the discussion that the Liberals say one thing and do another, which I have been pointing out.

The Liberals are the ones who went to the UN and committed to implementing the declaration. It was not the Conservatives; it was the Liberals. They are the ones who did not actually have an engagement process, and they have not created the engagement process they committed to. It was not the Conservatives who committed to it; it was the Liberals. They have failed.

Today at committee, on Bill C-71, we had some representatives from indigenous communities saying there was nothing. The member does address a good issue, in terms of the representative bodies across the country, whether it is Inuit, Métis, or first nations. That is important work that has to be determined, but in the meantime I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this issue.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I value about my colleague is that she has a great memory for history.

I was not in politics at the time, but my recollection is that the long-gun registry was a losing issue for the Liberal Party. When I look at this legislation, Bill C-71, it looks like a sneaky way of bringing that back, which would be a really bad idea for the Liberals to do.

Am I missing anything? Could the member elaborate?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it is a duck. In my opinion, Bill C-71 is a backdoor registry, and Bill C-47 is increasing the complications for our law-abiding hunters and fishers.

I think this answers the member's questions. It is a long-gun registry, just not in name.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to rise in this place to give my comments in tonight's debate on Bill C-47, but before I do so, perhaps I can expand upon a couple of the comments made by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, who talked a little about the procedural aspects of what is happening tonight.

If anyone is actually watching these proceedings tonight, they would notice that there is no debate happening. We are scheduled for debate, we are supposed to be having debate, but “debate” means that there are two sides debating, and the Liberals have chosen not to participate in this debate. That is their prerogative, and they can certainly do as they wish, but from a procedural standpoint, I would like to point out a couple of items.

Number one, if the discussion on Bill C-47 collapses, and by that I mean if no further speaker stands to offer comments, it means that the bill would get passed. Why is that important? It is because, as the government knows, there was an offer made earlier tonight to members on the government side that if Bill C-47 collapsed—in other words, if no one got up to speak—and if the government would not introduce another bill, we would all go home. Not to make it appear that we do not want to do our jobs, the reality is that every extended hour we spend in this place is costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The lights have to remain on, staff have to be here, security has to be here, the cafeterias have to remain open, and, ultimately, Bill C-47 will be passed. The government knows that. It has a majority, yet we sit here wasting taxpayers' dollars and not even participating in the debate.

I find it shameful that members on the government side who say they want to actively debate will not even comment on their own legislation. I will put on the record that the government is playing games here. We could all be cutting back on the expenses that taxpayers are being forced to pay, but Liberals do not see it that way, and I find that almost unconscionable. That is on the procedural side of things.

I will turn my remarks now to Bill C-47. I will make a couple of brief comments on the bill itself, which of course is about the Arms Trade Treaty. The reason I am bringing it up is the fact that any arms treaty should recognize the legitimacy of responsible gun owners who wish to own guns for their personal use, for their recreational and sporting activities, but the treaty does not recognize the legitimacy of that. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot support Bill C-47.

However, we should not be surprised, because this is just the latest in a long litany of Liberal attempts at gun control that have ended badly. The member for Sarnia—Lambton referenced it just a few moments ago when she talked about the failed Liberal long-gun registry back in the 1990s and early 2000s. For those who have perhaps forgotten the history, let me remind them that in 1995, then justice minister Allan Rock introduced the long-gun registry as a piece of legislation in this place, ostensibly and purportedly, according to him, that it would save lives.

History has taught us many things, and one of the things it has taught us about this failed attempt at a good piece of legislation was that the long-gun registry did nothing to save lives. What it did do, as was found out in later years, was cost Canadian taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. In fact, in 1995, the then justice minister, the hon. Allan Rock, stated in this place that, by his estimations, the long-gun registry, once fully implemented, would only cost $2 million a year. At that point in time, many people took him at his word, because there were no real records or precedents for what a registry of that sort would cost taxpayers, but, luckily, for the taxpayers of Canada, a former colleague of mine, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, knew that this figure of $2 million was obscenely low, that it certainly could not be anywhere close to that and that it would cost much more. Hence, for years thereafter, Garry Breitkreuz filed ATIPs, access to information requests, time after time, month after month, year after year, getting limited, if any, response from the government.

Finally, after years of diligent and persistent requesting of the government for pertinent information on the cost of the gun registry, it was revealed that the gun registry did not cost $2 million, but $2 billion.

What did it accomplish? Did it accomplish anything? Did it save lives? Well, I am here to argue that it most certainly did not. Why not? It is because the one fundamental flaw in the rationale and reasoning of Allan Rock, back in those days, supported by every Liberal in Canada is seemed, was that criminals do not register guns.

We have seen over the years an influx of illegal handguns and other guns coming across the border from the United States to Canada, but the people who brought these illegal guns across the border had no plans to register their weapons. Therefore, the gun registry legislation was absolutely worthless. To say it cost $2 billion for a worthless piece of legislation and call it obscene is being kind to the word obscene. It absolutely was one of the largest fiscal mistakes the former Liberal government has made in that party's long history.

I do not think the current government has learned anything from these past mistakes, because we see them time and time again trying to introduce legislation that would in fact be a back door gun registry. Whether it be Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, we know that what the Liberals would love to see is another gun registry being enacted here in Canada. However, I can assure members that if they try to do that, if they try to force their position on Canadians, on rural Canadians in particular, legitimate gun owners would again be absolutely beside themselves. The first time the Liberals tried to force the gun registry on legitimate gun owners and on rural Canada, the reaction was visceral, and it will be again.

I will conclude with a true story that happened when I was on the campaign trail in 2004. During the campaign, when I was door-knocking, I did not know the gentleman living at the residence I visited, but I saw in my identification that he was a former RCMP officer. I naturally thought that he was probably going to be in favour of this. Well, how wrong I was. When I got to the door, I was met with hostility on every issue I brought forward to the point where I actually started losing my temper, which I normally do not do, particularly when I am door-knocking. It finally got to a point, after many arguments on different issues, that the gentleman asked me “What do you think you're going to do about the gun registry?” I said, “We're going to scrap it.” He said “I worked for the gun registry.” I said “Well, in that case, don't vote for me.” He said, “I won't, and get off my doorstep. ”

I was laughing by the time I got to the sidewalk because it was so bizarre, but it just illustrates the visceral reaction that so many people have about this very contentious issue.

The gun registry that the Liberal government of the day tried to force down the throats of rural Canadians was something that should never have happened in the first place, but it did, unfortunately. However, for $2 billion in taxpayers' dollars, it is something that Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, will never forget, and because of that, when they see the current government introducing legislation like Bill C-47, Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, they harken back to the dark days of the 1990s when the Liberal government tried to force this obscene long-gun registry down their throats.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on the Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address one particular point.

We have had a couple of opposition members raise the issue of participation. The only thing I want to emphasize is that in the past, even with Stephen Harper, and often towards the end of a parliamentary session, we had time allocation, extended hours, and so forth.

Tonight we are in extended hours. The intention is to allow members who want to address the proposed legislation to do so. If it collapses, then we will continue to move on with other proposed legislation. That is something Stephen Harper and other governments have done. We should not be shy of working extra hours, as many Canadians have that expectation, to get legislation moving.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments to try to spin this, but the reality is that he knows as well as I do, although he probably will never admit it, that there was an agreement that was proposed to the members opposite that if Bill C-47 were left to collapse, there would be no new legislation introduced tonight. Members would simply go home and save the taxpayers, I would say, probably at least $30,000 or $40,000 from our not staying here until midnight.

That is the right of the members opposite to say no. We will gladly stay here until midnight and debate the merits of Bill C-47, but what I find absolutely unconscionable is that there is no participation by the Liberals. They were the ones who introduced this bill. They were the ones who put it on the schedule for debate tonight. It was them not us, yet they are not putting up even one speaker to support or defend this legislation. That is the worst of all scenarios, game playing and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was talking to one of my colleague's former colleagues, the hon. John Williams of Edmonton—St. Albert, a few months ago and he relayed a story to me about a conversation he had with a deputy minister at Public Safety. The deputy minister said, “You could give us a billion dollars every year and we could never stop the flow of illegal guns coming in from the United States of America.” This is a problem that Canada has had for a very long time. Could the member comment on how he thinks taxpayer resources could be better spent to tackle gun crime and gun violence in this country?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right about one thing: there are many other things that could be done to benefit Canadians than throwing $2 billion of taxpayer money down the drain, as happened in the 1990s with the failed Liberal gun registry. Let us think for a moment about where some of that money could be spent: health care, and certainly on infrastructure needs. However, to literally flush $2 billion of taxpayer money down the drain on a piece of legislation that had no hope in hades of saving lives, as was its purported purpose, is something that I find almost incomprehensible. It was an absolutely dark chapter in the life of Parliament when that legislation passed, and ultimately Canadians understood that this was something that would hopefully never happen again.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member mentioned Bill C-71, and like everything else we see from the current Liberal government, a lot of it is all optics. In Bill C-71 in particular, it speaks about guns and gangs zero times, but the words “register” and “registrar” are used there well over 30 times. What is the member's his opinion of that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I know that our time is tight. Quite frankly, resources could be best spent in perhaps increasing the police forces across Canada and perhaps in educating well-meaning and recreational hunters and shooters about the proper use of guns. However, to suggest that this piece of legislation or Bill C-71 would do anything to combat crime is a farce, because the legislation does not say anything about that. We do have a problem with crime, particularly rural crime, in this country, but Bill C-71 does not address that and Bill C-47 certainly does not. If the Liberals are serious about trying to prevent and eliminate crime across rural Canada, there are better ways to do it than this.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about the arms control treaty. I would like to say that I am delighted to be here, but I find that when the government decides to force us into these midnight sittings and then chooses not to participate in the debate, it is a bit of a one-sided conversation. Normally, when I show up to bring my viewpoints on why I am going to oppose a piece of legislation, I am looking to hear from the government about why it thinks this legislation is such a good idea, but I guess I am not going to hear that tonight.

First, I will talk about arms internationally, and then I will talk a bit about arms at home and some of the concerns I have with the bill.

First, there is this arms treaty that the UN is trying to get people to sign on to. My first concern is that there are a lot of countries that have not signed on to it. One of them, of course, is the U.S. This is concerning to me. If this was such a great treaty, a lot of countries ought to be signing on.

Here in Canada, we have the Trade Controls Bureau, which supposedly keeps us from shipping weapons to places where they would be used in internal and external conflicts, and used by people who commit human rights violations. I had the opportunity to sit at committee this afternoon, and the member for Edmonton Strathcona has already testified that she asked a question about arms that are being shipped through the U.S. into South Sudan.

This is not an isolated incident. There are parts of guns that are being assembled in other countries and sent to places where there are conflicts and human rights violations. She gave a statistic showing that the applications for these permits are pretty much all approved. Only 10 out of 7,000 in 2014 were turned down. Therefore, it appears that there is not enough traceability from where parts begin or arms are created to where they ultimately end up. That is something that ought to be fixed if we are really trying to meet the intent of the bill, which I think is to try to make sure we control where arms are going.

I was fortunate enough to go to Geneva, Switzerland with the World Health Organization as part of the Canadian delegation with the health minister. I was astounded when I was there to hear some of the members from countries across the world talk about how 684 hospitals were bombed last year. This is unbelievable and totally against the Geneva convention. In many cases, the weapons that are being used are weapons originating in countries that did not intend for them to be used in such a way. Therefore, we definitely need to tighten this up.

The Congo, for example, is at the point where its minister of health is talking about rebuilding its structure and having only 44% of the country with any kind of medical service access. It is definitely a serious issue.

If we focus on arms internationally, I talked about having better traceability. Definitely for those places that we know are committing human rights violations, we should have some eyes on the ground there to detect and eliminate those passages.

In terms of arms at home, it is important to state that we currently do not have a problem with law-abiding gun owners in Canada. We have to state this again and again. We are not having difficulty with law-abiding gun owners in Canada. We will kill more people with drug-impaired driving than we will with lawful guns in Canada. The Liberal government is rushing to legalize marijuana, which will double the number of people killed in that way. The Liberals are pretending there is a problem where there really is not.

The problem in Canada is guns and gangs in big cities, which is a problem with people who do not obey the law. If they do not obey the current gun laws, they are not going to obey future gun laws. It would be naive to think otherwise. That point cannot be made often enough. There is no problem with lawful gun ownership in Canada.

I have heard the testimony of some witnesses who talked about rural ridings. I happened to have a contingent of rural ridings in Sarnia—Lambton, perhaps not as rural as some of the people who have spoken, but there are a large number of folks there who are gun owners, many of whom are farmers. When there are no police close by or the police response time is measured in hours, not minutes, people need protection. Not only that, there are many times when one may have to take action. In the place where I live, we have cougars. It has not just happened in one year, but in multiple years, that when the weather is mild the cougars come down and attack the pigs and horses on the various farms around and the farmers have to shoot them. That is protection. I have friends who have a lot of horses. If a horse has to be put down, they do it humanely and they use a gun. In the rural environment, guns are a tool that is used wisely.

I have said before and I will say again that we do not have a problem with law-abiding gun owners. The other thing I would say is there are a lot of people who hunt for enjoyment or who have guns to practise shooting at a shooting gallery. I do not personally own a gun. However, I do not begrudge those who want the right to do so. I know that a lot of the people in the rural environment where I live have multiple guns. They have a different one for pheasant, for turkey, for moose, and for the deer. Apparently, there is quite a skill to this whole thing. What all Canadians want is to make sure that we take more control of things that could kill multiple people. We have all seen the news when people take a weapon that can shoot 50 rounds and really do huge damage. Therefore, I think there is a way of balancing that and making sure that the people who are getting guns are of sound mind. Everyone would agree that is also important.

This legislation does nothing to address any of that. This legislation, along with Bill C-71, is really a backdoor gun registry. It is bringing that back. I appreciate the history that the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan gave me, because I do recall that the long-gun registry did not turn out well for the Liberals. Bill C-47 and Bill C-71 will bring them to the same fate.

The other thing is that the bill is introducing a lot of red tape, bureaucracy, record keeping, and costs to businesses. I am not a fan of that.

If we talk about Bill C-71, the sort of partner legislation to this bill, there are a lot of unanswered questions about who does the background checks, who assesses that they are okay, and how people access the records. There is language that suggests it is a judicial process. What does that mean? Does it mean one needs to get a warrant to get that information? Is that information generally available to security organizations? Who can really access that information? Those questions need to be answered.

Also, in Bill C-71, I do not know why the government would take out the authorization to transport guns to and from gunsmiths, gun stores, border points, and gun shows. If people who own guns have to get their gun fixed, they have to take it to a gunsmith. Eliminating people's ability to transport guns to a gunsmith seems ridiculous. Similarly, if people are a fan of guns, they would go to gun shows. How would they get the guns there if they are not allowed to transport them? It just seems like a lot of roadblocks are being put up for people who are law-abiding citizens with whom we do not have an issue.

Overall, when I look at this legislation, it appears to me that it does not address the goal, which is to make sure that arms do not fall into the hands of people who would use them for human rights violations, in conflicts, or against Canada. It also does not do anything to address the issues with crime in Canada due to guns and gangs. For that reason, I will strongly oppose this legislation.

I would repeat that it is really too bad that the government has chosen not to put up any speakers in this debate tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the Clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

We do have quorum.

Was the hon. member only rising with respect to a quorum count or did he actually want to ask a question?

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

I have a question as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues are already excited. Just think how excited they will be after I ask the question. However, I am glad that, perhaps unusually for the Liberal side, I finally have a bit of an audience, not to imply, of course, that they were not here.

I want to ask my colleague for her view on the amendment the Conservatives proposed at committee. Members should know that Conservatives were very constructive as part of this legislative process. We introduced an amendment. My colleague from P.E.I is laughing. However, he should stay and hear this amendment, because I know there are many firearms owners in his riding, who I look forward to visiting with soon, who are concerned about this bill.

The Conservatives proposed an amendment at committee that said, “The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.”

This was an amendment that was asked for by stakeholders. It would have preserved the rest of the bill, the architecture of the bill, but it also would have provided clear protection. Let us be clear. There is a difference between, generally speaking, the kind of firearms that are used for recreational purposes, for duck hunting, and the ones that are used in military grade atrocities and that sort of thing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to allow for another question. I would ask individuals when they are asking their questions to keep their remarks to a minimum.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, definitely I think that amendment would have been in line with what I said, which is that we do not have a problem today in Canada with lawful gun owners. Therefore, exempting them from this would have been the right thing to do. That said, the government has a propensity to not accept amendments. I know I have been frustrated at the health committee when I have brought multiple amendments that are well thought out, and the government has totally ignored them.

Furthermore, when things go from this House over to the other place, amendments are brought back, typically ones that are exactly the same as we brought at committee here, and they are refused again, which seems a huge waste of taxpayer money. I am not opposed at all to that amendment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am going to ask her a very simple question. With respect to Bill C-47, what does she think of the fact that Canada sold arms to Saudi Arabia and that those arms may have been used against civilians? Does she think that is a good thing or a bad thing?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we start out and take on a contract, we have intentions and do not think they will be used incorrectly. However, when we find information to the contrary, then we have to reevaluate our decisions. I think it is clear that we want to make sure that Canada is not contributing to violence against women and girls, that we are not contributing to violence in the world, and that we are not contributing to conflict in the world.

I hinted in my speech about how we need to get better traceability on where weapons are going, and what is happening with them. When information presents itself, I think we need to take action.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I agree with some of the things my Conservative colleague just said, but I disagree with others. One of the things we have in common is that neither of us understands why the Liberal members here are so scared.

It is your bill. Why are you not talking? Why are you refusing to debate your own bill? Are you trying to hide? Are you ashamed? Is it that you are not proud of it? Why do you not want to talk? Is it that you do not like confrontation, because it makes you uncomfortable?

You are making us sit until midnight every night because you are behind—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. Order. I must remind the member to address the Chair, not individuals or the government. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has fallen behind on its legislative agenda. It is forcing parliamentarians to stay late into the night to study its bills because it is incapable of moving its legislative agenda forward. Now it is asking us to debate an important bill that speaks to significant Canadian and, dare I say it, Liberal values, like freedom and respect. However, the Liberals refuse to talk about it. It is utterly baffling. It would be all the more baffling if we were talking about another bill to legalize a certain substance, but that is not the topic of tonight's debate.

It is somewhat surreal that only the official opposition, the second opposition party, and the others are interested in debating this major bill governing Canada's arms exports to other countries. I will come back to this, because it speaks to fundamental values we hold. There is a general tendency to puff up with pride when this subject comes up, but when the time comes to choose between profits and respecting certain rights, the Liberal government shows its true colours. Again, this bill is not reflective of the standards, values, and principles that we have embraced as a society and that the government claims to care about here and around the world.

Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work and absolutely amazing job being done by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie on this file, specifically at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I also want to applaud her assistant, Jennifer Pedersen, who has been doing fantastic work on this file for years now.

This evening we are debating Bill C-47, introduced by the federal government, which should be capable of applying the principles of such an important treaty as the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. The Arms Trade Treaty is pretty simple. The general principle states that we should not sell arms to a country if we have any reason to suspect, based on overwhelming evidence, that it might use those weapons against civilian populations, either its own or in neighbouring countries.

Unfortunately, we seriously doubt that the Liberal government's Bill C-47 will manage to address this very basic concern. We must prohibit the sale of weapons to countries that violate human rights. This leads us to reflect on some philosophical and political questions. Who are we as a society? What role do we want to play in the world? What is our own identity? If we are proud to be a country that respects human rights here and abroad, we cannot have a double standard. Human rights are not optional. We cannot be satisfied with respecting them only when it suits us, only to make an exception when other interests prevail.

Respecting human rights means always. As progressives, New Democrats, and humanists, we want to make sure those rights are respected. That is part of our values as Quebeckers and Canadians. We cannot say one thing and then do the opposite. Unfortunately, Bill C-47 provides absolutely no guarantee that our identity and the image we want to project to the world will be respected.

Let us remember that, once the Liberals took office, they signed an export permit for the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. We now know that those weapons were used against civilian populations in Saudi Arabia and likely against civilian populations in Yemen, a neighbouring country torn by a very intense civil war. However, the Liberals tried to mislead us. The Prime Minister told us that there was no problem and that Canada had only sold Saudi Arabia Jeeps, or vehicles that were practically buses.

It turns out that the Jeeps in question were armoured vehicles, some light and some heavy. Normally, a government that respected the principles of the Arms Trade Treaty would not have signed the export permit.

I understand that a contract had been signed previously, but the government still could have exercised due diligence, respected our international commitments, and refused to issue the permit because there was too great a risk that those weapons would be used against the civilian population. Instead, the Liberal government decided to thumb its nose at all of those values and sign the export contract for the weapons.

After that, I do not understand how the Liberals can show their faces on the international stage and say that they are champions of human rights and that they want to win back Canada's seat on the United Nations Security Council, when they are not even capable of abiding by that treaty. The government introduced a bill to say that it will abide by the treaty, but there is no guarantee that it will do so.

In fact, there is a giant gaping loophole the size of the Grand Canyon in this bill.

Before moving on to that topic, I want to mention that the Liberal government's current bill includes absolutely nothing for re-evaluating existing export permits. Even if we were determined to act in good faith and there was no information or event to suggest that these arms could be used against civilians, there still should be an export permit re-evaluation mechanism.

However, Bill C-47 includes no measure for re-evaluating permits, even if there are credible allegations of human rights violations. That means that we are rushing to sell arms before getting all the information, and once the other country violates human rights and attacks civilians, we wash our hands of the whole thing, because there is no export permit re-evaluation process. It is quite incredible.

The huge loophole I was talking about a minute ago is that all exports of military goods to the United States are exempt. Under Bill C-47, exports of military materiel, arms, equipment, or partial equipment to the United States do not fall under the ax of the Liberal government's Bill C-47.

That means that we could sell arms to the United States, which could then sell them to a dictatorship that might attack civilians. There is nothing we could do about that under this bill.

We could sell a piece of equipment, a rifle part or a cannon part, to the United States, which could then sell them to people or governments that violate human rights and that would not fall on the chopping block of Bill C-47. Such sales represent half of our exports.

The Liberals have managed to circumvent the Arms Trade Treaty. If this bill had teeth, half of our exports could not be evaluated by this bill. It is unfathomable.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been having a great back and forth this evening between the NDP and the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member has any inclination as to what the Liberals thoughts are on this tonight.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am an objective observer, but they obviously must not be too proud of their bill, since they are all staring at their computers, iPads, or notes. They refuse to listen to the opposition's comments, even though the bill is like Gruyère cheese with no teeth. The bill does not comply with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, since it exempts all of our arms exports to the United States.

One more thing: the bill has no influence or power over the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC. This is the crown corporation that sold helicopters to the Duterte government in the Philippines, but the Liberal bill would not allow us to do anything about CCC.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. During question period this week, we heard even more of his expressions. I had the privilege of participating in an environment committee hearing today, and he had a good run.

Did my colleague expect better from the Liberal government? Did he expect the Liberals to step up and keep their election promises? His speech seemed to raise a big question mark, but I am wondering if he expected better.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely pertinent question. I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that a few years ago, there was an excellent game show on Quebec television called Fais-moi un dessin, or draw me a picture. People could draw one picture, two pictures, three pictures—all kinds of pictures.

I have a sad feeling that we have a government with no clear direction, except that it tends to do the opposite of what it said in the election campaign. I could recite a list, and it is quite fascinating. It includes combatting tax havens, creating a strong environmental assessment process, closing tax loopholes for CEOs, reforming the electoral system, and now, combatting climate change.

Yes, I do agree with my colleague. The Liberals are doing the opposite of what they told us they would do two and a half years ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if this debate is a harbinger of where we are going to be after 2019, with mostly Conservatives and New Democrats giving speeches. We are hearing as much from the Liberals in the House today as we did from Rachel Notley in the last election about the carbon tax, just to make sure this is not a totally Conservative-NDP love-in.

I want to ask the NDP about the amendment that Conservatives proposed in committee. It would have ensured that the brokering control list did not include small arms such as rifles, carbines, revolvers, or pistols intended for hunting or sport.

We agree with the NDP in principle that Canada should not be selling arms that go on to be used in atrocities or violations of human rights. However, very clearly ensuring that the brokering control list does not include certain kinds of weapons that are very much intended for hunting and recreation does not raise problems in terms of human rights.

Would the NDP agree with us that this is a good amendment and that providing protection for those kinds of tools does not raise any kind of attendant human rights concern?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is amusing to see Liberal members on the other side who have been muzzled and seem a bit restless. They seem to want to participate in the discussion, but unfortunately, they are not allowed to talk.

Indeed, this bill must address the wholesale trade of arms to governments that will give them to their armies to use. I agree with my colleague that we must protect the rights of our hunters and fishers, but that is not exactly the purpose and nature of this bill. I agree that people who use weapons for recreational activities or hunting should be protected. This is true.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-47. In some ways, I think the bill is connected to Bill C-71. I was very much looking forward to speaking to this bill, because the good people of Peace River—Westlock sent me here, and one of the mandates I ran on was to protect the rights of firearms owners in Canada. I am incredibly pleased to speak to this.

We, on the Conservative side, have always stood up for the rights of firearms owners. I was particularly interested in being here tonight to see what the Liberals had to say and to hold the Liberal government to account on what they had to say about this particular bill. We have been here this evening for a very long time, and we have not heard from a single Liberal, not in the time I have been sitting here.

It is disappointing that we have not been able to hold them to account and ask the tough questions that need to be asked. I see that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is here this evening. I know that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is a big fan of mine, and she always likes to participate in debates. We sit on committee together. I know that she definitely enjoys my speeches.

This evening she has not been engaged whatsoever with the topic at hand. She has not participated. She has not given a speech. She has not even asked a question. I have been very disappointed with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul that she has not outlined her opinion on Bill C-47. I have not heard a single word from her. She has been sitting here all night. We have been laying out our opinions on the bill. We have been telling Canadians what the good people of Peace River—Westlock think and have to say about firearms rights and this backdoor long-gun registry the Liberals are bringing in, particularly with Bill C-47 but also with Bill C-71.

I was looking forward to hearing what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to say. I know we have a great relationship. We work together on committee. We rarely agree on things, but we definitely like to spar back and forth. I was looking forward to hearing what she had to say this evening. Unfortunately, to this point, anyway, she has not gotten up to ask any questions or to lay out her opinions about this particular bill. I am not sure what the people from Kildonan—St. Paul think about that. I hope to hear from her.

Bill C-47 is an important piece of legislation. It brings Canada in line with the UN treaty that was previously signed. I am not quite sure if I am totally excited about that. I know that the Liberal government has undermined Canadians' trust in it whenever it comes to firearms. When this particular bill was introduced, I remember sitting here with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. We went through the bill together.

I remember being triggered by some of the words in there: “list”, “permit”, “record”. These are words firearms owners in Canada are not excited to read whenever there is any kind of firearms legislation. If we see words like “list”, “permit”, “record”, “registry”, or “registrar”, it sends alarm bells to firearms owners across Canada. I know that when the bill came in, we had a look at it. Those words appeared in Bill C-47 69 times.

We put out a call to firearms owners across Canada, and believe me, we heard back, loud and clear, that Canadian firearms owners, licensed firearms owners, do not trust the Liberals whatsoever when it comes to handling their rights in Canada.

We heard back strongly that this was not the direction we needed to go. The Conservatives, being the adults in the room this evening, have brought forward an amendment that would help alleviate the fears. We do not often like to help the Liberals when they stick their foot in it, but this time we thought, for the sake of the country, we would help them. We proposed amendments to help out Canadian legal firearms owners to make sure that their rights were protected, because that is, in fact what I was sent here, on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock, to do, to stand up for the rights of firearms owners.

This is just part of the ongoing trend of lack of accountability from those folks. We see it again tonight, when they are not willing to stand and defend their own legislation. We see it time and again. In the Liberals' last platform, I heard over and over again how they would have a new level of openness, that there would be transparency on every level. However, tonight we are debating important legislation and nobody is laying out his or her view of the bill.

One of the other things that is very concerning about the government is that it does not see past city limits. When I say that, I am thinking specifically of the rural crime issue in Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is tied to some degree to the downturn in the economy. We have seen a correlation in the downturn in the economy with a rise in rural crime. I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Liberal government. It has done nothing to protect the Canadian economy. In fact, it has thrown gasoline on the fire when it should have brought out the water hose. We have definitely seen the wrong output from the government. Then, to top it all off, when it should be focusing on the economy, it brings forward anti-firearm legislation. That just shows how out of touch the Liberal government is with the Canadian population.

After Liberals introduce this legislation, they turn tail and run. They cannot even stand in this place and defend their actions when it comes to Bill C-47, tonight in particular. I was looking forward to sparring on this legislation, but here we are with the NDP and the Conservatives are having a robust debate in the House of Commons. It has been significantly frustrating to pin down the Liberals when it comes to holding up the rights of Canadians.

I go back to the language in the bill. I mentioned earlier that words like “list”, “permit”, “record”, and “registry” show up 69 times in Bill C-47 and over 30 times in Bill C-71. However, there is no mention of gangs or gun violence whatsoever. This shows that Liberals do not understand the issue. The issue is not a particular firearm. The issue is that they have undermined the economy and Canadians' respect for firearms.

We are calling on the government to do something about rural crime and they bring forward firearm legislation that only goes after law-abiding citizens. If the law is changed, these citizens will comply with it. It is why they are called “law-abiding citizens”. It is why they have firearms licences. It is why they lawfully own firearms.

Criminals are not too concerned about where or how firearms are purchased. They are going to be out there regardless. We need to ensure we hold the government to account. We need to ensure that when we try to target issues like gang violence in the country, we put forward legislation that will do that. If we want to target gangs, we should be resourcing our police departments properly.

I will definitely be voting against Bill C-47.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the opposition complaining about having to be here, and this is only day three of extended hours.

The Conservatives say they are willing to stop debate on Bill C-47, but only if the government agrees not to call any other legislation. That makes no sense. They have been complaining about not having enough time to debate legislation, and extending the hours allows them to debate important legislation, so why do they suddenly not want to debate?

The government has been asking for information. The NDP has provided it, but the Conservatives have refused to provide it. Why do they ask for more debate time and then complain about getting it?

The government has spoken on this legislation, and we are now ready to advance it to the next stage. I would encourage opposition members to share information, as there is a better way to work in this place if they are willing to do so. We have not seen their desire to do so yet, but perhaps there is a way forward to be better.

They say they are eager to debate legislation, and yet they forced a vote on Bill C-57 when the House supported the bill. They did the same thing for private member's bill, Bill C-391.

If Conservative members can confirm that no members want to speak to Bill C-47 and they are prepared to let the debate collapse, then we would most certainly be happy to see the clock at midnight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to stay here all night to debate this piece of legislation.

I was hoping for a question from my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. I did ask for her to interact with me earlier.

It is great to be here tonight, and I was hoping to hear what the Liberals had to say about this particular piece of legislation. We have been here for several hours now, but I have not heard a peep from the Liberals on Bill C-47, the Liberal government's backdoor long-gun registry. I am happy to be here tonight to debate Bill C-47.

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

Madam Speaker, the point that has been raised tonight, and it is an important point, is that when we have a piece of government legislation, regardless of the hour and regardless of the context, one would think the Liberals would be proud of it, yet at committee we heard witnesses on all sides of this issue who were critical of the bill. They did not see it in some cases as actually implementing the treaty. They also saw it as imposing all kinds of red tape for firearms owners.

The Liberals refused reasoned amendments that would have fixed the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners while preserving the basic structure of the system we have in place in terms of arms control, which gives discretion to the minister on whether or not to approve the sale of arms. For any of the controversial arms sales that have been discussed in the House many times, it is still ultimately up to the discretion of the minister as to how they proceed.

The point is that members of the government are embarrassed about their own legislation. That is the point. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very concerned that I did not get a question out of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, but I will take it up with her later for sure.

The one thing that I forgot to mention in my speech earlier is that this particular bill may make firearms more expensive in Canada. They are already very expensive, and I am concerned that in the context of standing up for the rights of firearms owners, this is often a piece that is overlooked. This legislation would mean it would cost Canadian firearms owners significantly more to get firearms in Canada. This is another reason to oppose this legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29 the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 4, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock midnight.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments), as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-47.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

[Chair read text of motion to House]

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the result from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Québec debout, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of Québec Debout agree to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF is good to apply—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am afraid we have to ask the member for Regina—Lewvan to repeat. We could not hear which way he was voting. Would he say it again, please.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #720

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservative members voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Rhéal Fortin, Québec debout, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #721

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Rhéal Fortin, Québec debout, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply and will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #722

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.