Bill C-47 (Historical)

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

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

Export and Import Permits Act

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have not seen this level of global chaos and instability since the Second World War, with a level of death and suffering due to the conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and Sudan that is staggering and horrifying. Right now, civilians in a dozen countries in the Middle East are facing daily air attacks from drones and missiles. Every member of the House has a duty to join with their colleagues to encourage the protection of civilians in these conflicts.

In that spirit, I want to salute the member for Vancouver East for her concern not only in these conflicts but more generally for those who fight for justice and protecting the most vulnerable.

When I read the bill, Hansard from the fall debate on the bill, correspondence from my constituents on this matter, and the outside research and advocacy on it, both for and against, I hear a real concern about the proliferation of weapons of war, especially those that are used against civilians. I share the concern, especially when those weapons are used by leaders from countries to which we are closely allied.

While there are few good ideas in the bill, it is so broad in scope that it would fundamentally damage a regime that is already functioning at a high level to honour Canadian values, a regime that we strengthened when we signed the Arms Trade Treaty and passed further legislation to go further than the treaty.

The bill would limit and even damage Canada's ability to confront the many defence challenges facing us and our allies. It would limit Canadian sovereignty at a time of great conflict, while playing no meaningful difference on the conflicts that are of such justifiable concern to those who support the bill.

First I want to acknowledge one source of the bill: the horrifying war on civilians in Gaza perpetuated by the Israeli war cabinet. It is a war that was started by Hamas, killing and kidnapping almost 2,000 innocent Israeli civilians, who still need their own justice, but a war that has resulted in a disproportionate response by the current Israeli government and its military: a prolonged attack on a vulnerable and defenceless population, in which access to aid and food was itself weaponized.

Both Hamas and members of the Israeli war cabinet have been very clear that they do not just dehumanize the other side but that they also want to wipe it out. Some members of the Israeli war cabinet clearly intend to go further, with the widespread and illegal expansion of settlement activity in the West Bank. The question is how to slow or stop it and how to get justice. After all, these leaders have used not just weapons and bullets but also starvation, torture, arbitrary collective punishment, denying of aid and preventing civilians from leaving the war zone. The killing continues on occasion, even after the ceasefire agreement last year.

At least 75,000 people, most of them civilians, have met violent deaths in Gaza. On top of the deaths on and since October 20, 2023, an additional approximately 2,000 Israel Defense Forces soldiers have also been killed in action. The indictments of members of the Israeli war cabinet at the International Criminal Court on charges of criminal conduct in this war are richly deserved, and it is my hope that they and the surviving Hamas leaders will be held accountable for their actions. We need justice for the victims.

Canada cannot stop this war alone nor stop the killing alone. A well-intentioned vote for the bill may feel good. It may even feel right, but it would weaken our sovereignty without changing the facts on the ground in that war, and it would not prioritize what has the best chance of affecting the facts on the ground.

Our caucus and our government have been acting to affect the facts on the ground. When it became clear that Canadian-made lethal munitions were potentially finding their way into the armouries of the Israel Defense Forces for use in Gaza, our government took action to stop this with an arms embargo. No lethal weapons or ammunition exports to Israel have been permitted since January 2024. This is a sign that our regime, our current legislation and our participation in the Arms Trade Treaty are working.

We have been playing a key role in opening access to aid, including $300 million in humanitarian aid. We also know that a two-state solution with a reformed democratic Palestinian Authority guaranteeing the security of Israel is the only path out of this long, deadly struggle, and our government intends to push for this result at every chance.

I am under no illusions; this solution has been put at risk by both the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7 and Israel's attack on Gaza civilians in reprisal, but, and more importantly, we recognized the State of Palestine last September, joining other leading democracies in that recognition. We can draw a direct line between that recognition and the ultimate ceasefire, a ceasefire that, while by no means perfect, has at least slowed the killing.

As we know, arms exports can sometimes evade restrictions, and there are tools available to the federal government in the current regime to help curb this. As I said to my community in July, if Canadian weapons are being used in this war despite our embargo, then our arms embargo needs to be strengthened in a targeted way. In particular, the provision in the bill under clause 6 that would require an end-use certificate in certain cases, as recommended by the minister of foreign affairs, could be a valuable addition to our regime. We can also do more to sanction, and to seek justice for the victims using the International Court of Justice process and ensuring that it does its work in a timely fashion, and considering extending sanctions to more people who are responsible for war crimes.

However, the bill is mainly about something else. It is about curbing arms exports to the United States. Canada already has robust arms export restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act and the Arms Trade Treaty. The examples of loopholes that my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, mentioned in the previous debate were mostly before Canada's accession to the ATT and before Bill C-47 of the 42nd Parliament.

Indeed, our regime is stronger than the ATT, with its focus on weapons used against women and children, yet this war and other wars have killed many civilian women and children. Does that mean there is a loophole? It is a tragedy, yes, but it is not due to a loophole in Canadian law.

At its heart, the bill seeks to end legitimate trade and deny export permits with a single country, the United States. That would not be closing a loophole; that would be blowing up a critical defence and trade relationship with a NATO ally. If that were to happen, tens of thousands of Canadian jobs in the defence industry would be put at risk, our defence industry's access to North American supply chains to provide critical material to international allies would abruptly end and Canada would be frozen out of other trade partnerships in retaliation. Instead of working with our allies, we would be turning our back on them.

Every single one of these impacts would lead to a body blow to our sovereignty and our economy, further isolating us from our allies in North America and Europe at a time when, for the first time in living memory, Canada faces actual threats to its own territorial and economic sovereignty. In this moment, we need to build up Canadian sovereignty, not give it up.

Our allies in NATO and Europe are facing actual threats to their mere existence, especially in Ukraine. Ukraine's struggle for freedom from its Russian invaders is our struggle. In my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, we have a large and vibrant Ukrainian community whose friends and relatives back home have been living a nightmare since the 2022 invasion. Canadian firms work with those in other countries, including the United States, to fill production orders for items such as artillery rounds for the Ukrainian armed forces. The bill would disrupt such cross-border supply efforts that Ukraine relies on for its survival.

If Ukraine falls, it would lead to a catastrophic security crisis in eastern Europe, including the possibility of a wider war that could end up on Canada's doorstep in the Arctic and would bring grievous concern to millions of Canadians. The legislation would undermine these efforts and make both our countries less secure, with greater threats to our sovereignty and stability.

I want to stress that I am deeply concerned that weapons of war from Canada and around the world can and do end up in the hands of fighters who use them against civilians. It is a problem that can be solved only by adherence to the Arms Trade Treaty, legislation such as our current legislation, and further international co-operation and engagement.

The Prime Minister recently spoke eloquently at the World Economic Forum about how middle powers such as Canada need to stand together to hold the large powers accountable. Arms proliferation is one area where Canada's moral authority has already led to effective multilateral action to prevent lethal weapons from targeting civilians. In 1997, the Ottawa Treaty was implemented to prohibit the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines, which largely maimed and killed civilians over the 20th century. Over 160 states signed that treaty. The result has been astonishing, with over 48 million stockpiled land mines designed to kill humans having been destroyed.

We can, in this new order, work anew to stop impunity and to use the existing regime to curb the shipments of arms through enforcing the current legislation and working with our allies to establish new international rules to hold countries accountable for their actions. In doing this, we honour civilians, Canadian sovereignty and Canadian values.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Vancouver East for introducing Bill C‑233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, as part of Private Members' Business.

I have heard many comments about this bill from people in my riding of Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester. It is clear that Canadians are deeply concerned about our country's role in global security and the responsible export of military equipment. The debate surrounding this bill touches on core Canadian values: our commitment to democracy, human rights, responsible trade and our contribution to making the world a safer place. These are not abstract ideals, but the very foundations of our foreign policy.

No one here disagrees with this bill in principle. Canada must maintain strong export controls to prevent the misuse of weapons. However, Bill C-233 rests upon a false premise.

Canada has one of the world's strongest export control regimes in the world and has updated it over the years accordingly. That is why Canada joined the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019 and updated our laws to ensure full compliance through Bill C-47, a bill that many members, including the member for Vancouver East, should remember well.

Canada's export control system aims to limit the illicit arms trade by preventing weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, criminals or groups that foment conflict, and to reduce human suffering around the world. Oversight is essential, but it must be balanced and practical. While Bill C‑233 means well, its overly broad scope would create obstacles for Canadian businesses, slow trade and limit Canada's ability to respond effectively to global challenges.

When we debated Bill C‑47, we discussed many of the measures in the bill before us today that concern exemptions. What was true then remains true today in terms of the need to include these measures in our system. In short, the proposals in Bill C‑233 would disrupt a balance that we are able to achieve through existing legislation, regulations and policies.

Let me explain further. The world is changing. Conflicts are evolving and new threats are emerging. Canada must stay agile and ready to respond.

Canada's export control regime was built to keep pace with this changing world. Our risk-managed framework provides the tools needed to act swiftly, doing so, for example, by adding items to the export control list to prevent sensitive technologies from being misused.

Decisions on export permits are taken carefully after a rigorous process that involves a range of experts from across government. This includes evaluating permit applications against the criteria drawn from the Arms Trade Treaty and embedded in Canadian law through the Export and Import Permits Act.

Our system is flexible, but that flexibility does not mean that we are cutting corners. We have a carefully designed risk management framework that balances our national security, international obligations and defence partnerships with the commercial ties that support economic growth in Canada. Our process is designed to take into account intelligence, diplomatic information and human rights considerations. We work closely with Canada's missions abroad, our allies and partners, to make informed decisions that reflect the realities on the ground.

As parliamentarians and Canadians are aware, Canada has suspended or revoked permits when credible evidence of misuse has emerged. Any violations of the Export and Import Permits Act are taken extremely seriously. Those who are found to have breached the law face consequences, including fines, seizures and criminal prosecutions. That is how we help to protect lives and uphold our values. We will always work to do so.

Bill C-233 would hinder our ability to continue with this risk-based approach in three significant ways.

First, Bill C-233 seeks to create a statutory definition of arms that could potentially include items that are not weapons at all, such as navigation systems, software and even basic mechanical parts. The bill's proposed definition could have Canada needlessly regulating thousands of products, from nuts and bolts to steel and aluminum. This would put Canada out of step with allies, whose focus is rightly on high-risk technologies and high-risk destinations. Further, this would overwhelm our export control system, require staggering increases in government resources, slow legitimate trade and hurt Canada's reputation and Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized manufacturers, which rely on predictable rules.

Second, this bill seeks to prescribe how export applications are assessed by adding new mandatory requirements for governments to certify the end use of items purchased by private companies in their countries. Not only does this go well beyond what is required by the Arms Trade Treaty, but it would be virtually impossible to implement. Most countries simply do not issue official end-use certificates to private entities. Canada would have neither the authority nor the influence to enforce this provision, and imposing it would only block legitimate exports, including potentially those destined for our allies in Ukraine.

What is more, Canada already conducts thorough end-use and destination risk assessments. End use is verified using a variety of reliable methods. These may include end-use certificates issued by a government when it imports items itself, or other assurances provided by reputable private parties for private exports.

Canada assesses destination countries based on factors such as the strength of their export control systems and the risk of diversion, consistent with how our allies operate. The proposed addition to our assessment criteria would not make the world a safer place. Rather, it would hurt Canadian businesses and their customers, including the Canadian Armed Forces and our NATO allies at a time when we need them most, and undermine Canada's role as a trusted partner.

Third, Bill C-233 would impose costs and burdens on ordinary Canadians. Like many of our allies, Canada uses expedited licensing in specific circumstances for lower-risk military and dual-use items to countries with similarly robust approaches to export controls. This is a standard international practice that enables defence trade to move quickly and securely without compromising oversight and the agility it requires in a rapidly divided world, at a time when we are trying to increase our defence capacity, not decrease it.

This bill would disrupt the balance we have worked so hard to achieve. It proposes restrictions that would increase costs for both the government and Canadian businesses, without improving the quality of decisions. This bill would end the current system that allows most military goods and technology to be exported to the United States without the need for individual permits, which would harm an important trade and defence relationship.

In fact, this bill goes beyond what it claims to do in this area. It would cancel all existing export permits, including long-standing general export and brokering permits. This means that Canadian companies, many of which have already undergone rigorous review, would be forced to start from scratch and re-apply for permits, affecting hard-working Canadian companies that already have very limited resources.

As a result, I wish to inform the House that we are unable to support this bill as it stands, but I think it is important to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing it before the House.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the member for Vancouver East for her ongoing and very steadfast commitment to strengthening oversight and to bringing peace in our world. She has attempted to do that in the bill, and I believe that all members of the House agree that Canada must maintain a strong export control system to prevent the misuse of weapons anywhere and everywhere.

Right now, global security matters more than ever, and Canada must act with clarity and resolve. The decisions we make today in the House will shape not only our sovereignty but also the safety of Canadians and of our allies around the world. Accountability does matter, but Bill C-233 as it is drafted, while perhaps well-intentioned, would risk undermining Canada's security, international security, our defence industry and our international partnerships at a critical moment.

Indeed, since the Second World War, Canada has strengthened our export controls for arms to the point where we are privileged to have one of the world's strongest, strictest and soundest regimes. For generations, countries have looked to Canada as a leader, as a peacekeeper and as one of the world's most steadfast promoters of the responsible use and sale of military equipment. Canada's voice matters.

Canadians are wanted and needed to promote peace, to make peace and to keep peace. That is why a Liberal government under then foreign minister Lester Pearson ensured that Canada was there to found the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. It was a Liberal government that made sure Canada was a founding member of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

That is why the Liberal government ensured that Canada was one of the founding members of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

It was a Liberal government under then foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy that shepherded the Ottawa convention to ratification, banning the practice and use of landmines. A Liberal government then ratified the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019.

Canada's efforts do not go unnoticed. When looking to refine their export control systems, other countries have looked to our own as one of the strongest and most effective examples. I know it has been many years, but I would remind the member for Vancouver East of the debate while she was an MP in 2018, respecting Bill C-47 during the 42nd Parliament. Canada had a strong debate about that and put in standards that not only meet the Arms Trade Treaty requirements but exceed them.

We apply exemptions more narrowly than any other ATT signatory does. We control a wider range of items than the ATT requires. Not only do we place controls on conventional arms; we also control dual-use goods and nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technologies. We impose a stricter criterion for denials than those specified under the ATT, such as where there is a risk of contributing to gender-based violence, terrorism or organized crime, and we enforce those rules. We enforce controls on Canadians involved in the transfers of military goods, even if the goods never enter Canada. We have tabled annual reports to Parliament on the export of ATT items ever since the 1990s, long before the ATT's ratification.

In deciding whether to issue or not issue an export permit, the current law dictates that it be taken into consideration whether the proposed export would contribute to peace and security, or undermine it, and whether it could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We are very serious when we take these matters into consideration, and we are vigilant on the enforcement of the law; those who breach it are held accountable.

Suggesting that Canada is not compliant with the ATT is not only misleading; Canadians also both need and deserve to hear the truth about it. We have a comprehensive legal framework, a legislative framework, that we in Parliament have contributed to and that now the Government of Canada enforces.

Thus, we can see that Bill C-233, while based on good intentions about keeping people safe, is actually based on false premises. Canada has one of the strongest military export control systems in the world, and considerations for human rights are at its very core.

Instead of strengthening Canada's ability to promote responsible use and sale of military goods, this well-intentioned but misguided piece of legislation has wide-reaching implications, and it would have unintended consequences. We are working to fulfill our NATO commitments. We want to bolster security and defence industries. We want to diversify trading partners, and this bill would put us out of step with our allies in licensing efficiency, transparency and the use of appropriate discretion.

We are a NATO country. We need to be part of NATO, and the security of NATO is something that Canadians depend on. That does mean, for us in the House today, that we need to keep our NATO obligations and build upon them. This legislation would undermine that.

The changes proposed in the bill would severely hinder our defence industry by creating further instability. It would weaken Canada's role in NATO by creating unnecessary delays and potentially blocking Canadian-made materials and equipment from getting to our allies to keep our world safe, allies like Ukraine, and it would jeopardize the capabilities of our Canadian Armed Forces by constraining the way they get the supply of critical equipment and impeding their operations in vital regions like the Arctic.

Under Canada's existing export control framework, Canada allows certain military items to be exported without permits, provided they are destined for specific countries. This flexibility is embedded in the systems of our closest allies, such as the U.K., the EU and Australia. We also have deep and symbolic relationships with other partners, such as the United States, and it is a party for which the ATT also provides certain exemptions. Canada already applies this discretion more narrowly than any of the other nations granting permit-free access to only one country.

Let me be perfectly clear. Any exemption that we provide the U.S. is not a loophole. It reflects a unique geopolitical relationship rooted in our shared security commitments, continental defence and decades of military integration. This legislation would undermine these efforts and make both of our countries less secure with greater threats to our sovereignty and our stability.

The bill's stringent permitting requirements would not only strain our relations with the United States and our co-operation, but also disrupt relationships around the world. Mandatory delays in approvals would place Canadian suppliers at competitive disadvantages in Europe and Oceania, while restrictive end-user requirements could hinder Canada's ability to support partners like Ukraine in a critical time.

Let me get to the heart of this. We are in a consequential moment for global security. We have had an election. Canadians have declared that our sovereignty and our security are paramount. We are serious. We call upon all parties in the House to take that consideration seriously to ensure that Canada can defend itself and can work with our NATO allies to defend ourselves in the world.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved that Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for seconding this important bill.

It is with both a heavy heart and a deep sense of purpose that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, or what many civil society organizations have been calling the no more loopholes act, legislation that seeks to finally bring Canada's arms export regime into full compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

The bill is about something far larger than policy or procedure. It is about whether we, as a nation, will choose to be builders of peace or merchants of war. It is about whether Canadian-made weapons, the products of our factories, our labour and our infrastructure, will continue to fuel the killing of innocent civilians abroad.

We cannot claim to be one thing on the world stage, a supporter of human rights, while turning a wilfully blind eye to what we are doing by maintaining this giant loophole. Canadians expect and deserve better.

Let me emphasize first and foremost that the legislation is not partisan. It should never be partisan. Every member of the House, regardless of political stripe, must ask themselves whether we want Canadian-made arms to be used to commit war crimes. Do we want our export laws to continue to contain loopholes so large that bombs and munitions slip through them? Do we want Canada's name to be associated with genocide and human suffering? The bill is our opportunity to say no, clearly, unequivocally and finally.

Canada acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019. The government did so with great fanfare, promising to uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability and peace. Bill C-47 passed to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, establishing a new framework for arms brokering and export controls.

At the time, Canadians were told that our government was committed to ensuring that our weapons would never contribute to human rights abuses, that we were joining the world in saying never again to atrocities fuelled by the global arms trade. What we were not told, and what Canadians are now only beginning to understand, is that the 2019 amendments left open a gaping loophole, a loophole that has since become a giant and open back door for weapons, components and explosives to flow freely from Canada to the United States and then onward to some of the most brutal conflicts in the world.

The U.S. loophole is indeed the heart of the problem. Canada never adopted article 4, which required Canada to treat weapons, parts and components with the same scrutiny as full weapons systems. Canada also left out article 6, which clearly prohibits arms transfers where there is a serious risk that they will be used in genocide or war crimes. By omitting these articles, it means that, under section 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act, the lion's share of exports to the United States are exempt from the permit reporting and human rights risk assessment requirements that apply to every other country.

That means that Canadian-made weapons, explosives and parts can cross into the United States completely unmonitored, with no transparency and no public record. Once they arrive in the U.S., those components are often integrated into larger weapons systems, F-35 fighter jets, Apache helicopters and heavy munitions, and then exported to countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, where they have been used to devastate civilian populations.

In fact, in 2009, under the Harper administration, General Dynamics Land Systems, a Canadian company, provided 724 light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. These light armoured vehicles were seen being used in Saudi Arabia's operations in Yemen for years, where hundreds of thousands of Yemenis were killed.

In 2014, under another contract, Canada supplied a newer make of armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. In 2015, that continued under the Trudeau administration. This is not speculation; this is not hyperbole. This is fact, documented in commercial export data, defence contracts and investigative journalism.

A recent report by Arms Embargo Now uncovered that hundreds of shipments of Canadian military goods are directly contributing to atrocities abroad. Between April 2004 and August 2025 alone, 34 shipments of Canadian-made aircraft components went to Lockheed Martin in the United States. Later, those same components were transferred to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and Israeli weapons manufacturers. Another 360 shipments of Canadian aircraft parts went to the F-35 assembly facility in Fort Worth, Texas. These are the same F-35s that have been dropping bombs on Gaza. Meanwhile, 150 shipments of explosives from Quebec went to U.S. ammunition plants, producing 2,000 pounds of bombs and artillery shells exported to Israel.

This is not indirect complicity. This is active participation in a deadly supply chain. Let us be clear about what that means. When Canadian-made components end up in weapons that kill civilians in Gaza, when our explosives are part of the bombs that are dropped on hospitals and apartment buildings, Canadians bear responsibility. When weapons bearing the logo of a Canadian arms manufacturer have been documented in the hands of paramilitary groups in Sudan, groups accused of massacring civilians and committing ethnic cleansing, Canada is complicit.

The United Nations and human rights observers have warned repeatedly that the flow of arms, including those traced back to Canada, has fuelled one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. We cannot continue to hide behind bureaucratic language or the convenient fiction that what leaves Canada for the United States stays in the U.S. It does not, and we all know it.

The government has tried to reassure Canadians. The former foreign affairs minister said that no Canadian “arms or parts of arms” were sent to Gaza. Her successor, the current foreign affairs minister, said that Canada would “not allow Canadian-made weapons to fuel this conflict in any way”. Those words ring hollow when confronted with the evidence.

The government has done nothing to close the U.S. loophole, nothing to stop the use of Canadian-made weapons or components in the bombardment of Gaza, nothing to ensure compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. By exempting U.S.-bound exports from oversight, Canada is violating not just the spirit but the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 5 of the treaty requires all state parties to regulate arms transfers in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner. Article 6 prohibits transfers that would contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity or serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Article 7 requires each state to assess the risk of exported weapons being used to commit such acts.

When the government issued general export permit no. 47 in 2019, allowing the full export of full-system conventional arms to the U.S. without permits or risk assessments, it undermined the very treaty we acceded to. That was why we need to pass Bill C-233, to end such blanket exemptions, so that Canada can finally live up to the promises we made to the world and to ourselves.

Bill C-233, the “no more loopholes act”, will close the U.S. export loophole requiring permits and human rights assessments for all military goods, regardless of destination; end the issuance of general export of brokering permits that bypass case-by-case review; ensure full transparency and public reporting of all military exports, including those to the U.S.; and reinforce Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty and restore integrity to our export regime.

A few weeks ago, I received a leaked document of the Liberals' talking points to counter my private member's bill. The Liberals say that Bill C-233 is misguided. They say this bill would decimate Canada's defence industry, that it would create unnecessary delays and potentially block Canada-made materials and equipment from getting to our allies in Europe like Ukraine, and that it would weaken Canada's role in NATO. Let me address each one of these points head-on.

First, living up to Canada's commitments to the Arms Trade Treaty is not misguided. It demonstrates the integrity and trustworthiness of a nation.

Second, the bill would not decimate the defence industry. It would simply require that all exports, including those going to the United States, meet the same human rights and risk assessment standards that we already apply to every other destination. If a country is already compliant with the Arms Trade Treaty, it has nothing to worry about. Canada's defence system will not be put in jeopardy, as Canada is reliant on imports of military goods going to Canada, not exports.

Third, this bill would not disrupt NATO or delay aid to Ukraine. Not only is there no evidence that it would delay or potentially block Canada's military aid to Ukraine, but the vast majority of the aid to Ukraine is sent either directly to Ukraine or to European allies. This bill seeks to standardize the regulatory process for arms exports going to the U.S. In addition, transfers of military aid, including for Ukraine, are handled by the Department of National Defence, not the export permitting process overseen by Global Affairs.

Fourth, harmonizing export controls with our European allies strengthens, not weakens, NATO. Of the 32 NATO members, 30 are state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty. The two states that are signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty but have not acceded to the treaty, are Turkey and the U.S. Passing Bill C-233 would, in fact, bring Canada into alignment with the vast majority of our allies, not out of step with them.

Some have bizarrely claimed that more transparency would compromise our sovereignty. Transparency is not a threat to sovereignty; it is its foundation. A sovereign nation should be able to stand before the world and say with confidence that its weapons are not being used to kill innocent civilians. This is not weakness; this is actually strength.

While I acknowledge that Canada's defence industry contributes to our economy, that economic benefit cannot come at the expense of human lives. Our message to the defence industry is clear: If exports are compliant with international law, business can continue; if exports risk enabling war crimes, then they must stop. We cannot and must not build prosperity on the backs of human suffering.

This is ultimately a test of our integrity, particularly at a time when there will be unprecedented defence spending with a commitment of $81.8 billion in budget 2025, far exceeding the 2% NATO commitment the Prime Minister made during the campaign. We cannot continue to call for peace while profiting from war crimes, and we cannot condemn atrocities abroad while quietly enabling them through our exports.

Canada once led the world in peacekeeping. We once stood proudly as a voice of conscience on the global stage. However, today, our moral standing is being eroded, not by what we say but by what we permit. As we debate this bill, the bombs are still falling on Gaza. Families are still being buried beneath rubble. Children are dying in hospitals that are running out of fuel and medicine. Somewhere in the chain of destruction, there are Canadian-made parts, like propellants and circuitry, that help make these weapons possible. That must end.

History will judge us not by how we defended industries or alliances, but by whether we defended humanity. Bill C-233 is about closing the loopholes, yes, but it is also about opening our eyes. It is about aligning our laws with our values, our words, our deeds, our actions and our conscience, with no more exceptions, no more excuses and no more Canadian complicity in war crimes.

To my colleagues in this House, if we truly believe in human rights, in the rule of law and in peace, then we must support this bill. When the crime is the killing of innocent civilians, there can be no loopholes, no silence, no culture of impunity, no looking away, no wilful ignorance and no moral blindness.

Canadians will be watching how each member votes, and it will be recorded in Hansard forever. They want Canada to be a force for peace. It is time for us to live up to that promise.

Foreign Affairs

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, human rights are central to our foreign policy. As Canadians, we value our freedom, democracy and the rights guaranteed to us by our charter. However, not everyone is as fortunate. Many people are denied the right to live their lives as they wish. This can especially be the case for women around the world, who are forced to live as second-class citizens. We are using our voices as Canadians to speak up in the defence of human rights, even when it can be very difficult to do so.

Our position on human rights, including women's rights, in Saudi Arabia is very clear. It is a position that we have advocated for in public and in private since we came to office. This dialogue is critical to international diplomacy, because it establishes a common understanding about the value we place on ourselves, on our fellow citizens and on humankind.

That is also why Canada has taken such a strong stance on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We are gravely concerned about the involvement of the Saudi government in this extraterritorial murder. The killing of dissidents is horrific and shocking, and it cannot be allowed to go uninvestigated. Murderers cannot enjoy impunity and immunity from consequences. We have demanded a full accounting of the killing in an independent international investigation.

Canada is not alone in this matter. Under our leadership, the foreign ministers of the G7 countries have made two separate statements on Mr. Khashoggi's murder.

Canadians expect that our country's foreign policy respects our values. This is why we have committed to stronger and more vigorous arms export controls. That is why we passed Bill C-47, which will allow us to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and also implement measures to ensure that Canadian arms exports are not used in unacceptable ways.

We have consulted on these changes with industry as well as with civil society. Canadian arms manufacturers also want to ensure that their goods are not misused abroad. The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries supports our accession to the Arms Trade Treaty, which puts the treaty criteria, including human rights, directly into legislation. Those were the same changes that the member opposite voted against. She and her NDP colleagues voted against including human rights and gender-based violence as considerations in our arms export system.

Unlike the NDP, we live up to our principles. We are committed to supporting our strong defence industry and the important jobs that it supports. That also includes the significant investments across Canada that we make in our industries. Our government will always support Canadian workers and industries and defend their interests at home and abroad.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-240, which is private member's business relating to trafficking in human organs.

To begin, let me clearly state that our government is entirely committed to ensuring that our criminal justice system keeps communities safe, protects victims and holds offenders to account.

Additionally, our government has a proven record over the last three plus years of presenting a solid face on the international stage as it relates to trafficking in organs, to trafficking in people and to the illicit trafficking of arms exports.

Members in this House will recall that, not too long ago, under the leadership of our foreign affairs minister, our government introduced Bill C-47, which would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, to ensure that arms sold to other state entities were not going places where they could contravene international law, where they could cause all kinds of horrific things to occur. Quite frankly, we introduced that bill and we believe in the philosophy that underlies it because we understand the importance of global human rights and the equality of human dignity and ensuring that international law is upheld. We certainly share that philosophy when it comes to any and all other matters that concern trafficking and activities that occur across borders in illicit ways. That would relate as well to the trafficking of human organs.

We want to eliminate human organ trafficking around the world. That is why Canada's criminal justice system is at the forefront of these efforts. We want to stop these kinds of activities from happening abroad.

Furthermore, we certainly condemn the illegal and exploitative trade of human organs in the strongest terms, and we say that both in Canada and on the international stage. People can be sure that the officials who represent Canada at embassies and in international forums abroad share that same message, as would all members on the government side of the floor, when meeting with constituents in their home ridings, representing the government from coast to coast to coast and when travelling abroad to represent the Government of Canada and all Canadians on the international stage.

Organ transplantation and donation is governed by a comprehensive legislative framework at federal, provincial and territorial levels in encompassing health and criminal law. We are talking about significant coordination between different federal departments and agencies, which all have to work together to ensure we can guard against the trafficking of human organs. It takes cross-jurisdictional conversations as well to ensure officials at provincial and territorial levels, as well as public safety officials, ensure these sorts of things can be snuffed out and guarded against, and that this sort of trafficking is prevented as much as possible. Trafficking is prevented in drugs and human smuggling at home or when things arrive at our borders or shores.

We want to ensure we take a public health approach when we look at these sorts of things as well to ensure, first and foremost, that we look after the safety, security, health and well-being of Canadians. When we do that at home, we have the ability to share that story around the world and work with other partners on the international scene who may not have the same level of capacity Canada has to deal with these issues. It is a lesson and something we share across the world. Where we have the capacity to step up and lead, Canada always has. It has certainly been the story under this government.

We have to be aware of trafficking in human organs and other illicit goods, especially in the context of increased migration and flows of people who are on the move more so than we have seen since the end of World War II. In many cases, people are fleeing persecution. In some cases, they are fleeing gang violence and other activities that have caused them personal, physical, mental and psychological harm. Therefore, it is important we understand why people are on the move, what other illicit activities could be camouflaged with people moving around and how we guard against any trafficking at all, but certainly a proliferation of trafficking of things like human organs, persons or other illicit goods.

Another point is that the Criminal Code in Canada currently prohibits the removal of an organ without the informed consent of the donor. If we lacked that provision in our Criminal Code, think how terrible it would be to have an organ removed without one's consent. We have taken steps in our country to ensure that is not the case. It is reflected in our view that human dignity is to be upheld in all cases. Having someone's consent to have an organ removed is upheld in Canada.

With the few minutes I have left, it might be worth re-emphasizing for those who have been watching over the last few minutes how seriously we take the issue of trafficking in human organs, just like we take all matters that would have a negative or deleterious effect on the health, well-being, safety and security of Canadians or on the Canadian population.

Foreign Affairs

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, our government is fully committed to creating a stronger and more rigorous arms export control system through Bill C-47. As the member opposite knows, the contract for those vehicles was signed in 2014, and all the major parties, including the NDP, agreed to respect that contract during the last election campaign. Canadian businesses and workers and our international partners need to know that an agreement with Canada still means something after an election.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a few petitions signed by people across my riding. These constituents are licensed firearms owners and they point out that they are some of Canada's most law-abiding citizens.

The petitioners recognize that Bill C-47 will nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals or terrorists. As such, they call on the House of Commons to oppose Bill C-47.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to get up in this House many times to talk about how proud our government is to see Bill C-47 move through Parliament so Canada can accede to the ATT. Here is what Bill C-47 would allow Canada to do. It would allow Canada to set an example for countries that do not have effective arms controls. It would enshrine international human rights law and gender-based violence, in law, as criteria for arms exports, and it would control arms brokering. It would allow Canada to do all of that, and the NDP voted against it all as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, Saudi Arabia is now the largest non-U.S. destination for Canadian military exports, but how many exports were sent to the U.S.? Well, we do not know, because the Canadian government does not track or regulate these exports. Today we are voting on Bill C-47, which does not address this massive loophole. However, the experts and the 23,000 citizens who recently signed a petition say that this must be fixed before Canada accedes to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Will the government work with the experts and fix that bill?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons to represent the fine people of Red Deer—Lacombe, many of whom are law-abiding firearms owners who are entrusting me to try to make some semblance of sense out of yet another attack on the law-abiding firearms community across Canada. I will do my best.

For those watching at home, we on this side of the House have moved a motion asking the public safety committee that is studying Bill C-71 for an opportunity to travel across the country and actually hear from affected parties and those who otherwise would not have an opportunity to come to Ottawa.

Just to put things into context of how we got here, this bill, Bill C-71, much to the dismay of the parliamentary secretary who spoke earlier and said that they have had all kinds of time to do this, is number 71. This means that it is not a very high priority on the Liberal government's index. The government has had almost three years to get to this point and table this legislation, and now it wants to ram it through the House as fast as possible. After less than seven hours of debate on this piece of legislation in the House of Commons, it was kicked over to the committee on a whipped vote, where of course all the government members voted in favour of it, including all of the members from the north, and I will talk about the north a little bit.

Now we have gone over to the committee and had two weeks of meetings. We had four two-hour meetings to talk with all of the witnesses that we need to hear from. That is simply not enough. We have to consider that we heard from the minister and the bureaucrats in the first meeting. Now that we have had the chance to have all the Ottawa bubblespeak, that basically gave us three meetings, for a grand total of six hours. In those meetings we had about two people per hour, so that means we have heard from about 12 different organizations and groups from all sides on this particular issue.

However, the real issue is that there are so many people who want to have an opportunity to actually address and talk to their government—to petition them, to make their case, to make their point.

As I go through this, if the changes in Bill C-71 actually addressed serious, violent crime or gun crime in Canada, it would actually have the full support of this House. There are things that all parties in this House can agree on. One of those is enhanced background checks. We can vary in our opinions on how effective that might be, but I do not think anybody here would disagree that enhancing background checks, going further back into an individual's history to see if there is a problem, to try to protect public safety, to try to protect people from becoming victims, to even try to protect people from themselves in certain circumstances, is going to be a bad idea. We can debate on how we are going to do that or the merits of one approach versus another and that could be implemented, but there would be a consensus in this House.

I told the Minister of Public Safety during the first committee meeting that if the government would simply table or put aside all of the other clauses in Bill C-71 that have nothing to deal with public safety and focus on that element of the bill, he would have the support of the Conservative Party, or the Conservative members of Parliament. He rejected that offer. He rejected it outright at that committee meeting. As a matter of fact, he went on to erroneously try to make the case that the measures that they are going to take are going to increase public safety.

I asked the minister point-blank, because he was trying to make the case that a source of firearms that are being used in crimes in Canada are actually domestically sourced. We know that statistically that is not true, because most firearms that are used to commit crimes have come across the border and most firearms that are used to commit crimes are not long guns. They are certainly not long guns of lawful firearms owners. In fact, Gary Mauser, a professor emeritus, actually gave us some very important statistics right from Statistics Canada that said that gun crime is lower in houses where there is a PAL holder. That is a possession and acquisition licence. It is outside of those homes, such as a home in the rural part of Canada where we have maybe high crime rates. Those are thefts, so those are not firearms-related crimes, except for potentially, in some cases, theft of firearms.

However, the gun crime in those communities where there is actually a victim is far lower than in communities where there are fewer firearms owners. This tells us that criminals do not follow firearms legislation. They never have. They never will. That is why this legislation makes little to no sense.

I am a firearms owner. I am a hunter. I grew up on a farm. I have had a firearm in my hand ever since I was legally able to do so, whether it was for vermin control or pest control. When I was in army cadets, I would use an old Lee-Enfield that was converted to a .22 to shoot targets. I participated in biathlons. I have successfully been around firearms my whole life and I have not been shot to date. I am completely confident in all of my friends and family members who own firearms and use them responsibly. I have no issues or concerns whatsoever.

What does concern me is that manufactured hyperbole is used in a political sphere to generate dissension and to create the illusion of a problem. We heard from the Criminal Defence Advocacy Society, as my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner just quoted, that there is no evidentiary proof. I asked the Minister of Public Safety at committee where the report is from his department that says how many people will be saved with this legislation. I asked for the numbers of crimes that will be reduced and how many gun deaths will be reduced by this legislation. He does not have an answer for these questions because this is a politically driven bill based on emotional arguments.

I am a law-abiding firearms owner and I do not want anyone to get hurt with a firearm. As a person who understands firearms, I am not saying I am a technical expert, but I have been around them my whole life. I know what the law-abiding firearms community thinks and does because I am one of them. If good proposals or measures were brought forward, I would help the government of the day convince the law-abiding firearms community that they were good measures, but I cannot in good conscience stand here and say that this is what Bill C-71 is.

We did not hear from a single witness from the north. In the Northwest Territories, Yukon, or Nunavut, hunting and fishing is a way of life, and more people do it than do not. All three members of Parliament from the north were elected as Liberals, and two of them are still in the Liberal caucus. None of them came to the committee to voice their questions or concerns. The member for Central Nova came asking questions. He was talking like a Conservative when he was asking his questions at committee because he has heard from his voters that this is an area of absolute concern. There was not one witness from the north, even though the motions were moved.

Here is who did not have a chance to testify: Randy Kuntz, a retired Edmonton police officer, who was summoned to the committee but did not have the time. Wes Winkel, the president of Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association, was another. Not one witness appeared before the committee to represent the sellers or retailers in this country. As a matter of fact, in all of the questions that were posed by my colleagues across the floor at committee when it comes to the mandatory provisions of dealing with record keeping, which most store owners already do for warranty purposes and so on, the only people who were asked about it were the chiefs of police.

I am going to go back to that, because we need more clarification. When I asked the Minister of Public Safety about warrants and warrantless access to firearms records, the minister actually did not know, but he said that investigating officers would need a warrant. Then he said that the chief firearms officer, who is a police officer, would not need a warrant. Then the bureaucracy stepped in and tried to help him out with his claims. It seems that during an investigation, a police officer must get a warrant in order to access the records of a private store owner as part of their investigative process. However, a chief firearms officer can go in at any time, according to the legislation, and demand to see the records, and the store owner is then obligated to produce the records.

When I asked the chiefs of police before committee if it is that cut and dried, that black and white, their answer to my question was quite shocking. They said no, that is not the case. They said it is not cut and dried, not black and white. There are circumstances in which the chief firearms officer can pass on information to an investigating officer and vice versa.

It is not cut and dried. It is an argument that we have been asked to believe and asked to buy that is simply not true.

Why is the government so afraid of listening to store owners who sell these firearms? Maybe it is because it does not want people lined up at its door condemning the Prime Minister's tweet, which was false and misleading when he said in that tweet that when people buy a firearm or ammunition at a store, they do not need to provide identification. That was a patently false tweet, creating a misinformation campaign out there to justify this legislation.

I have never been to a store where I have been able to even touch the firearms. When I ask to see a firearm, which is in a locked cabinet, I am asked for my possession and acquisition licence. I have to lay it on the table before the firearm can be brought to me. If I want to buy ammunition, I have to provide that possession and acquisition licence or a possession-only licence in order to purchase it.

It is a patent misnomer that right now people do not have to provide identification in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition at a store. It is patently false. It is a misinformation campaign meant to justify the ends, which is this piece of legislation, which would do nothing for public safety.

Nicolas Johnson of TheGunBlog.ca spends all of his time talking about this issue. He has thousands of followers and is well connected. Why would we not want to hear the opinion of this individual, who represents so many firearms owners?

I moved a motion at committee on May 22 to hear from the Women Shooters of PEI. The Liberal government claims to be a feminist government that does everything, that puts women first and its feminist agenda first. It would not let the Women Shooters of PEI come to committee to testify. I guess when it suits the government's need to be feminist, it is feminist, and when it does not suit its need to be feminist, it is not.

Dr. Caillin Langmann, emergency medical resident in the fellowship program with the Royal College of Physicians in Canada, in the division of emergency medicine at McMaster University, is not going to be allowed to testify. He actually works in emergency.

Stacey Hassard, the leader of the official opposition of Yukon, is another person. Did I mention that not a single person from Yukon came to committee? Even the member of Parliament for that particular area did not come before committee. I remember his absence from this place for four and a half years, and I think it had a lot to do with this particular issue.

Another is Andy McGrogan, the president of the Alberta Association of Chiefs of Police. Why did we only hear from select police chiefs that the committee chair wanted to hear from? Why could we not hear from one from the west?

Richard Munderich, of the Ajax Rod and Gun Club in Ontario did not appear, and that is really too bad. The parliamentary secretary from Ajax vetoed the ability for his own rod and gun club to appear. He just made an impassioned speech in here, which was not really based on anything scientific or evidentiary. One would think that the parliamentary secretary who represents the Ajax Rod and Gun Club would want his own rod and gun club to testify before committee, but that did not work out.

Gord Zealand, from the Yukon Fish and Game Association, another expert from Yukon, was another voice silenced from the North on this particular issue.

We wanted Harvey Andrusak of the BC Wildlife Federation to come here. We wanted to have Darrell Crabbe of the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation come here. We wanted Bob Kierstead, who is a shooting expert and an international firearms instructor, to come here.

We wanted Kerry Coleman from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and David Clement from the Consumers Choice Centre to come here.

We wanted the Manitoba Wildlife Federation and la Fédération des chasseurs et pêcheurs du Québec to come. I think that is the first French I have spoken in the House in 13 years. As well, we wanted to hear from the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.

We did not hear from a rural crime watch group. We did not hear from anybody dealing with these issues in rural Canada at all. We did not hear from Citizens on Patrol. We did not hear from any of these groups that are affected. We heard from nobody from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or from the Alberta Association of Rural Municipalities. The government completely ignored all of these groups.

There are other stakeholders who wanted to appear. The Firearms Outlet Canada is a gun store in Ajax that wanted to come. The Wanstalls gun store wanted to come. Al Simmons, who owns a gun store in Hamilton, wanted to come. Sports Action is a gun store in Ottawa that wanted to come. Dante Sports is a gun store in Montreal that wanted to come. Cabela's, Sail, and Bass Pro Shops wanted to come. Nobody from any of these companies or their parent organizations was even invited or allowed to testify before committee.

This legislation would directly impact them, and I think this actually violates a fundamental principle of our democracy. When legislation is being passed that directly affects Canadian citizens, they should have the right to make a pitch to the government of the day on an issue that impacts their life, but again, that is why we are here as Conservatives.

Conservatives are respectfully asking for this House to say that the public safety committee has not had an opportunity to do its due diligence and it ought to go across Canada. This is my 13th year in the House, and I have seen committees go across this country to talk about issues that affect a lot fewer Canadians than this one, having hearings and discussions. This particular piece of legislation affects over two million firearms owners in Canada alone, not to mention everyone else who wants to have a say on the matter.

People are upset about this. The vendors and retailers are upset because they have not had a chance to have their say. Why are they upset? It is because this bill would do several things. It would create a registry. Whether the government wants to admit it or not, it is a registry. I am a former database administrator, so I know a bit about this. Every time there is a transaction, and there are going to be transactions, whether it is a business-to-business sale, a business-to-person sale, or a person-to-person sale, every one of those sales has to be validated by the government now. People who go to gun shows on Sunday had better hope somebody is at the firearms centre ready to answer the phone. That is another group that the committee did not speak to. Nobody from any of the gun shows across Canada was invited to testify before the committee.

None of the transactions at gun shows, or person-to-person transactions, will be allowed to go through if somebody at the firearms centre is not answering the phone. As a matter of fact, the bureaucrats said they were going to have to be given notice. All of the gun show owners will have to notify the government that they are having gun shows, so the government can properly staff it on the weekends. Does this sound like a recipe for success and the government serving the Canadian people well? I do not think so. However, those who happen to be tech savvy can enter all of the information from their possession acquisition licences, and the buyer can get the possession acquisition licence from the seller.

Nobody has answered this question. If I have a possession acquisition licence and the person selling me a firearm has a restricted possession acquisition licence, nobody is checking to see if the person is selling me the right firearm. As a PAL holder, I am only allowed to purchase non-restricted firearms, but somebody with an RPAL could have in their possession a restricted or prohibited firearm that they could try to sell me. Is the system doing anything to validate that?

The government says it is not keeping track of information on the firearms, but there will be a reference number, so part of that reference number is going to have all of the information from my licence. It has a terrible picture, but it gives my name, date of birth, address, hair colour, eye colour, and my weight. I do not want to disclose that. There would also be the same information from the other party, and each transaction would have to be tracked. It is not each transaction, but each item on the transaction. If I were to buy three firearms at a gun show, I would have three registries with three different reference numbers, with my name and personal information on each one of those records. The name of the person I bought it from would be on each one of those records, or easily looked up, and of course the firearm information that is being transacted.

When I asked the Minister of Public Safety what the provision in the legislation was for when it comes to creating this transaction, he said we need to be able to trace the source of the crime back to the original firearm sale. Already there is an onus on law-abiding firearms owners. If someone's firearm is stolen, or a person sells it to someone and that firearm is stolen subsequent to that, the government wants to know all the way back to where that firearm was originally manufactured, purchased, and imported into Canada.

I do not have time today to talk about Bill C-47 and the Arms Trade Treaty, all of the other factors, the other registries, and all of the other information that the government has on Canadian law-abiding firearms owners. I did not have a chance to talk about the continuous eligibility. Every day, every firearms owner is flagged. Firearms owners are intelligent people. They know what laws make sense and what laws do not make sense.

I am hoping that I get a plethora of questions so that I can further elaborate on why Bill C-71 would do nothing for public safety. It is a registry, whether the government wants to admit it or not. Something cannot be traced against data that does not exist. When the data exists, it is in a registry. Trust me, this is what I used to do for a living. I built multi-million dollar software systems. I know what a database is, as a database administrator and a data architect. This is a registry, just with another name.

Business of the House

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the opposition House leader to speak to the government House leader on the questions that she has just raised.

In the meantime, this afternoon we will continue with report stage of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Following this debate, we will turn to Bill C-47, the arms trade treaty, also at report stage.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days. Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill-C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1; Bill C-69 on environmental assessments; Bill C-75 on modernizing the justice system; and Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Report Stage

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was admirable. I am appalled by the government's response to limit today's debate.

We have just five hours to analyze a bill with a massive scope. The bill is 550 pages long and amends 44 acts, including Bill C-47, which would impose a tax on people who use prescription medical marijuana. We are talking about children with cancer or children who suffer excruciating pain. This could have a negative impact on their quality of life.

The Prime Minister responded that this was for people who abuse marijuana and use it recreationally and who go see their doctors. He is indirectly accusing doctors of not doing due diligence and accusing people of abusing the system to avoid paying their fair share. Meanwhile, he is making patients suffer.

How could a government think this is responsible?

In terms of our democracy, if no members raise these issues, as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway did, and if the government limits debate, we will lose this information since we do not have enough time to raise these issues in the House of Commons.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on my comments and I would particularly like him to tell us whether Bill C-47 should be withdrawn from the list of 44 acts being amended by Bill C-74.

Does he think that the government should withdraw Bill C-47 from the 44 acts amended by this bill?

Bill C-74—Time Allocation Motion

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that with five time allocation motions over the last few days, it is becoming pretty clear that despite the election promises of the Liberals, they are essentially picking up where the Conservatives left off in how they manage House business. It is clearly a disappointment to Canadians who thought they were voting for something different.

However, the thing about time allocation is that we will hear a lot of members get up and say they want a chance to speak, and members must have that chance to speak. That is true, but the really nefarious thing about time allocation, in my opinion, is that there are all sorts of groups in civil society that want to weigh in on these bills, whether it is on a carbon tax or on Canada's accession to the arms treaty.

I was just talking to a colleague who told me that a petition was started on Friday, criticizing the government for Bill C-47's exclusion of Canadian arms exports to the U.S. for purposes of the Arms Trade Treaty. Today, that petition has over 30,000 signatures. Those are Canadians who want the time to make the case to the government to make those changes, and it is those Canadians in civil society who are also being robbed of the time to make a difference with respect to legislation.

I am wondering why the minister thinks it is acceptable to prevent civil society from weighing in on these bills.