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.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I was pleased to extend a spirit of co-operation to bringing this back onto the table, but I have to tell you that we heard repeatedly during testimony that Bill C-47 does not in any way create a burden on domestic gun owners through the brokering control list. The record-keeping requirements for importing or exporting controlled weapons already exist, and they are the same as they were under the previous government.

These requirements of the Export and Import Permits Act, the EIPA, have been in place for 70 years. We've also heard that the ATT preamble very clearly recognizes “legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law”.

The Conservatives have continuously raised this spectre, but I have to tell you that nowhere is this mentioned in the body. It's simply untrue that this is at all the intent.

I also want to recognize amendment Liberal-2, which will be tabled shortly by MP Sidhu. He submitted an amendment that will add for greater certainty the confirmation that Bill C-47 does not create any new regulatory burdens on domestic gun owners.

While we have some of the officials in the room, I also want to quote Richard Arbeiter, the director general of the international security policy bureau, who said, “The ATT also does not impact, and I would like to underline this, domestic gun control laws or other firearm ownership policies.”

I think we've heard this repeatedly. I would like to suggest that this particular amendment is not necessary in this situation. I would like to encourage the members in this particular case to vote against this amendment.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, colleagues, for your indulgence.

I know that certainly the members of the USW appreciate your understanding as well, Madam Laverdière. This certainly did catch us by surprise, and that's why I apologize for being a bit tardy.

As you will recall, colleagues, this single and fairly simple amendment was the result of considerable testimony provided by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, as well as the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. You'll recall the debate at the time. Also, I appreciate that we have witnesses from the department here, because our professional civil service, which we've been talking about a lot in the House of Commons lately in terms of what high regard we have for our professionals, was a part of the United Nations discussions on the Arms Trade Treaty for many years.

We can recall that a previous government had some concern that the preamble would not provide sufficient protection for cultural aboriginal sports shooting and hunting uses of legal firearms. We tried to present a fairly simplistic way to provide that degree of clarity within the legislation itself. People may recall that on the day we had those witnesses testifying on Bill C-47, I quoted Professor Kent Roach from the University of Toronto law school on his position with respect to preambles that do not provide legal certainty when you can provide such legal certainty within the pith of the legislation. That's the intention here, friends and colleagues.

The intention comes from direct consultations, particularly with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which I know the minister's office has been in touch with in respect of this bill. I will say—and then I'll end and hear debate from my colleagues—that these are very specific exemptions that give the certainty that a wide cross-section of Canadians would like to see, because they agree with the spirit of this legislation. As you'll recall, we did not march in hundreds of witnesses. We tried to make sure that this was done in a respectful way to provide a degree of certainty that people in rural Canada—first nations, sport shooters, and those sorts of people—can have by a direct provision in the act.

This gives them that clarity. It's been reviewed by the witnesses who appeared that day. It does not interfere with the intention and certainly the considerable commentary on what the intention of this legislation is with respect to conflict zones and violence around the world.

I would ask you to consider this to give that large cross-section of Canadians the degree of certainty that I think both sides—as I remember from our witnesses being here—wanted to see. There was a sense early on that the government might propose this themselves. We would have enjoyed seeing that. Since they have not, I think that in the spirit of co-operation that my friend Borys so eloquently expressed earlier, this modest clause could be accepted by all who are here today.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It's my understanding—and I have to admit that it's with a bit of surprise— that the first amendment, rather than having been tabled with a whole series of work on our agenda, was somehow withdrawn. I would ask for the unanimous consent of my colleagues, who are all present here. As we all will recall, before Christmas, we took Bill C-47 off our action list because we were advised that a series of amendments were coming from the government. We worked in the spirit of goodwill to see that through. Today, given the tariffs imposed by President Trump on our aluminum and steel industries, I did a brief media discussion after question period, which held me up by a couple of minutes from coming to this meeting. In many ways, I was standing up for the thousands of members of the United Steelworkers, and organizations like that, that are concerned about these tariffs.

In light of that, and with my friends in the NDP here, I would hope that they would see that it's our responsibility, following such rash action from our largest trading partner, to be part of the solution to push back. Considering that was why, we would have tabled CPC-1, which was out there as a suggestion from the stakeholders we heard from. Why it might have been withdrawn would be called sharp practice, in the legal profession, or certainly, you could say, unfairness.

I'm trying to be very respectful of people's time and presence here today, but I'd like unanimous consent from our group to say that we can now deal with that because we certainly had enough things we could have worked on while I was doing the media interviews.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll briefly do what I must do in every situation such as this, which is to remind the committee that I'm here because you passed a motion that requires me to be here, so that I don't have the right to put forward this amendment at report stage, which I would have vastly preferred.

In my brief opportunity to speak to this, let me say that I'm very gratified to see the government move an amendment that strengthens the bill. It obviously would nullify the one that I put forward. I just want to say briefly that it is a significant improvement to ensure that the minister's requirement to consider the risks is now mandatory and not merely discretionary. Assuming that my friend Anita's amendment is passed, it will in fact strengthen this legislation.

I need to put on the record, with your permission, Mr. Chair, the deep regret that we have not fixed the U.S. exemption loophole that remains in Bill C-47, unless someone in the course of this committee's clause-by-clause is able to amend that section of the bill to say that we will track U.S. sales and close what has generally been described by most of the groups before this committee as the loophole you can drive a tank through.

I appreciate the moment to support the amendment the government is putting forward. My amendment is put forward, and I have no power to withdraw it or not. It is deemed, under the terms of the motion this committee passed, to have been moved, and my opportunity is merely to come to speak to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

I want to first say that I support this amendment. I think it's important to specify that the minister has to take these factors into account.

Article 6 of the Treaty uses the language

“shall not authorize”.

A number of civil society witnesses, including representatives of the Rideau Institute, Amnesty international, and Project Ploughshares, stressed the importance of including this in the bill. Ms. Mason even told the committee that, without this inclusion, Bill C-47 would be contravening both the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty, so I think this is a very important change.

I'd like to clarify something else. As things stand, it would be necessary to have strong and compelling evidence showing that the goods would be used to commit human rights violations, when, in actual fact, that isn't how it works. In reality, if a reasonable risk exists, the permit should not theoretically be issued. Given certain comments, I just wanted to set the record straight.

It is essential, in my view, to include this obligation for the minister. As you know, we've really been pushing for this, so I'm glad to see that our colleagues across the way have come around. This is a welcome amendment.

As for including the Arms Trade Treaty criteria in the bill, I don't agree with my colleague that putting it in the regulations gives it the same weight as putting it in the act. That is something else we pushed hard for. I think it's very important to include all of these factors, particularly gender-based violence. This is quite a groundbreaking element of the treaty.

This, too, responds to what witnesses have called for. According to my notes, Anna Macdonald, of the Control Arms Secretariat, was very clear on this point, as was Alex Neve. Although Mr. Neve is familiar to many of you, I should point out that he is from Amnesty International. The Rideau Institute had the same position as well.

Including the criteria in the actual act will allow for greater transparency and provide a better safeguard. Furthermore, as we've heard, it will still be possible to add other criteria to the regulations, so the intended flexibility will remain.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you very much.

I don't think I need to read this one, because I believe everybody has it in both French and English. I'll just talk about the rationale behind it.

This is an amendment that comes significantly from the testimony we heard. Although by law, if the Arms Trade Treaty article 7 is put into regulation it has the same force of law as it would if it were in the legislation, what we heard from multiple witnesses was that this was something that caused some concern. This amendment takes all of article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty and puts it in the actual text of the legislation.

A number of other things are changed in this amendment. One of them is that in all of the proposed sections that have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty we have changed the word “may” to the word “shall.” This is a significant change. Right now it says that if any of the article 7 human rights violations in the Arms Trade Treaty are likely to occur, the minister “may” take action. What we're suggesting is that it be changed to say that the minister “shall” take that into consideration. I think this is a significant change to the clauses that have to do with the Arms Trade Treaty.

We did not do this in the first proposed new section, because it is actually not to do with the Arms Trade Treaty, which is something I can discuss when the subamendment comes forward.

The other change in this particular amendment is under “substantial risk”. Right now, we really need conclusive evidence before a permit is not given because of the risk of human rights violations. In the Arms Trade Treaty, the term used is “overriding risk.” That is something that doesn't necessarily appear in Canadian jurisprudence, so I decided to put in “substantial risk”.

I see that in three out of the four amendments the wording is “substantial risk”, but in two of the opposition amendments that came forward.... I know there's one that talks about “reasonable risk.” One reason I use “substantial” is, first of all, it is more common in Canadian jurisprudence to say “substantial”. Also, “substantial” is a quantitative thing; “substantial” actually indicates an amount, whereas “reasonable” is a subjective thing.

Those are the three main changes we're putting in. What this really represents, and we saw it in the minister's testimony as well, is a strengthening of the legislation, Bill C-47. It puts the Arms Trade Treaty language into Bill C-47. It strengthens the wording, so that the minister “shall” take into consideration. Also, for the first time it says that if there is substantial risk that something is going to be used for human rights abuses or gender-based violence.... That's another thing that would now be in the act, which wasn't before, the words “serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.”

I think this addresses most of the concerns that were raised by civil society and by the witnesses, and that it strengthens the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much for appearing.

Colleagues, as is generally the case in legislation, in clause-by-clause, if there is any technical advice you'd like to have, we have our officials here to help with it.

I'd like to begin by calling clause 1 of the piece of legislation, Bill C-47, which we are studying and which we are looking to go through clause by clause today and in the future, if necessary.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Vandenbeld.

I'll start by responding to your preamble.

The work we have all been doing together on Bill C-47 is a real example—and Mr. Chair, let me address you also—of how a parliamentary committee can do really important work in improving legislation. As I said, this is not the first time this committee has had a real impact on the work of the government. The Magnitsky report is another example of the way this committee's work has shaped our government policy. That's the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, and I would like to thank the committee, and the witnesses who come before the committee, for being so effective. It's made a real difference to what we're doing as a country.

Regarding the theme you and I are flighting for—women, the country and security—I absolutely agree with you. I also want to congratulate you, Ms. Vandenbeld, on the work you are doing, not only in Canada, but also in Kosovo, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Congo. I think that those life experiences enrich your life both as an MP and as a member of this committee; that's very clear to me. It is very useful for Canada to have a woman with those kinds of experiences.

For our government, including women in everything we do in terms of peace and security issues is a priority. We talked about that at the peacekeeping summit in Vancouver, and it was only the beginning. I am certain that our plan to include more women in peacekeeping operations will make a huge difference for Canada, for the world and for the United Nations.

There will be a lot of work, and it won't be easy. However, this is important work, and we now have a plan. We have the support of many countries around the world. I know that this work is necessary, and I am sure we will manage to do it

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

Thank you very much.

Before I begin, Minister, I want to thank you for the respect that you have shown this committee and the witnesses before this committee in your openness and willingness to see amendments that are going to improve Bill C-47 and strengthen our export control mechanisms. I appreciate that.

I would like to begin by thanking you for joining us today. I would also like to commend you on your commitment to promoting a feminist foreign affairs policy, especially on your commitment to the Global Women, Peace and Security Agenda.

As you know, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1325 18 years ago. The resolution calls for women to be part of peace proceedings, in all respects. We know that peace treaties are more stable, inclusive and sustainable when women are involved.

Canada has a great deal of expertise and has much to offer in this area. We already have women participating, as civilians, in peacekeeping missions around the world. I noted that Canada's second action plan integrated principles relating to women, peace and security. That plan will lead to an increase in the number of women participating in all aspects of the promotion of peace, be it through peacekeepers, police officers, non-government organizations, NGOs, or through efforts to strengthen a state in the wake of a conflict.

In your opinion, how could that new policy have a greater impact worldwide?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Thank you very much, Jati, for that question.

As you know, I currently represent a very urban riding, but I was born and raised in a very rural one, so I understand that question, and I think it is a very important one. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to offer some clarity on that issue.

Bill C-47 will make changes to the process for importing and exporting controlled goods to and from Canada. It does not affect domestic gun control regulation and it does not affect the domestic trade in arms. The Firearms Act falls under Public Safety, so admirably and effectively managed by our friend Minister Goodale. This is not the purview of Global Affairs Canada. We have quite enough on our plate without that.

Bill C-47 does not create any form of new registry for gun ownership. Let me be very clear on that. Record-keeping obligations in the Export and Import Permits Act have existed since 1947, and Bill C-47 does not change the system that Canadians already know.

Let me quote from the the Arms Trade Treaty preamble, which acknowledges, and I quote:

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

I know that there have been some concerns about that issue, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to absolutely put those concerns to rest, so thank you for that question.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for taking time out to come in front of the committee. My question is going to be on Bill C-47.

During this committee's study of Bill C-47, we heard concerns raised by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Coming from a rural riding in British Columbia, I get to hear those concerns at the same time. Would this bill have any impact on domestic firearms? It's a two-fold question. The next one is, does it impose any record-keeping requirements that don't already exist?

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

I would like to ask one last question about arms exports. Bill C-47, which concerns the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty, includes criteria, and I think that is an improvement.

As you know, all the experts we have heard from pointed out that the bill violates the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty. The bill still has significant shortcomings; it does not at all address the role of the Canadian Commercial Corporation or the Department of National Defence. However, in the sale of helicopters to the Philippines, we are are talking about two major players. The bill also does not cover our exports to the United States. Yet President Trump announced that he would loosen the rules on arms exports from the United States to some countries with a poor track record in human rights. We know that Canadian weapon parts got to Nigeria through the U.S.

Are you also planning to resolve those issues in the current bill? I'm talking about the role of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the role of the Department of National Defence and exports to the U.S.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

I would like to thank our chair and the committee for the opportunity to join you all here today. I have some prepared remarks, a few things I'd like to say off the top.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce two outstanding Canadian public servants who are here with me. I think everyone in Canada now knows Steve Verheul. I was about to say that he is our chief negotiator of CETA, which he is, but right now, significantly, he is our chief negotiator of NAFTA. Thank you for being here with us, Steve.

With me also is David Morrison, who has recently been named our associate deputy minister of Global Affairs. David has been doing terrific work on a number of files, but most particularly he's a Latin America expert and has been leading our effort on Venezuela.

Muchas gracias, David.

For the Albertans here, he's from Lethbridge.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for inviting me to speak to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development about how our government is delivering on its foreign policy priorities. Last June, in the House of Commons, I presented Canada's priorities in terms of foreign policy. The very essence of those priorities is the fact that they are founded on the importance of maintaining a stable and rule-based international order.

Our government is capitalizing on Canada's global presence, which is long-standing tradition, to speak with a strong voice in order to defend intolerance and nativism, while addressing the legitimate concerns of individuals who feel overwhelmed by globalization. This means that constructive leadership is needed in the established world order and with our partners to promote peace, security and prosperity around the world.

Mr. Chair, that is exactly what our government is doing.

At the United Nations, the G7, the G20, the OAS, the World Trade Organization, in the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and NATO, to name just a few, Canada today is engaging creatively to navigate the complexities of today's world.

We are doing so, Mr. Chair, not only in word but also in deed. We have shown that Canada can lead and assemble partners to find solutions to the world's most pressing global challenges.

In October, in Toronto, I hosted the third ministerial meeting of the Lima Group on Venezuela. Foreign ministers from over a dozen countries convened to discuss steps needed for a peaceful return to democracy and to relieve the terrible suffering of the Venezuelan people. I repeated this message once again two weeks ago in Chile at the fourth Lima Group meeting, as well as the importance that Canada's sanctions against Venezuela have in our efforts to achieve these goals.

The issue of Venezuela was further extensively discussed at the North American foreign ministers meeting last Friday in Mexico City. We may be holding another meeting of the Lima Group in Lima next week. That's under discussion. Just a couple of hours ago I spoke with the Peruvian foreign minister about that possibility.

With the United States, Canada also recently hosted the Vancouver foreign ministers meeting on security and stability on the Korean peninsula. This was an essential opportunity for the international community to demonstrate unity against and opposition to North Korea's dangerous and illegal actions and to work together to strengthen diplomatic efforts towards a secure, prosperous, and denuclearized Korean peninsula.

Likewise, on Myanmar, I'm proud of Canada's leadership and cross-party support for that leadership. Too often in diplomacy, it is said that words do not matter, but they do. It is significant that Canada was one of the first countries to denounce the crimes against humanity and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.

Since the beginning of 2017, Canada has contributed $37.5 million to help address the needs of affected people in Myanmar and Bangladesh. This includes $12.5 million the government contributed to match the donations of generous and concerned Canadians. I would really like to thank and congratulate all the Canadians who took part in that. That is why we have appointed Bob Rae, a friend and an exemplary Canadian, as special envoy. As a non-Muslim-majority country, it's particularly important that Canada speak out in defence of this persecuted Muslim minority.

When it comes to Ukraine, I was delighted to travel to Kiev in December and to meet with President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Groysman, and Foreign Minister Klimkin.

I conveyed our unwavering support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and spoke about our recent addition of Ukraine to the automatic firearms country control list, something that the Ukrainians thanked me for.

Last June I also said we would take strong steps to ensure that all human beings are treated with dignity and respect, based on our strong commitment to pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law. Since then, we adopted the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act—and thank you to everyone around this table for the support for that measure—to enable Canada to take action against individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and those who engage in significant acts of corruption anywhere in the world.

I want to thank all the members of this committee for your important work on this legislation. It truly would not have happened without this committee's leadership, a very important contribution.

We will continue to firmly denounce any kind of injustice and intolerance around the world, as we have done in places such as Yemen, Chechnya and Iran in recent months.

You also heard me talk about women and girls. As I said in June, it is important for a prime minister and a government to proudly self-identify as feminists.That actually marked an historic milestone.

Women's rights are human rights, and they are at the heart of our foreign policy. That is why we are determined to promote a feminist and ambitious foreign policy. That commitment is at the heart of Canada's feminist international aid policy, which was launched in June by my colleague Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, and at the heart of Canada's new national action plan dedicated to women, peace and security, which I announced last November.

I know that the contribution of several committee members here today was a great help in developing those policies. So I would like to thank them once again.

At the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference held in November, in Vancouver, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative on women's participation in peace operations. The initiative's goal is not only to ensure that women can participate fully in peacekeeping operations around the world, but also to guarantee that good conditions are in place for their long-term participation. The Elsie Initiative is designed to improve the overall effectiveness of United Nations operations. We are hearing from experts from a number of countries this month to determine that the next steps will be.

Our reputation as a country with clear and cherished democratic values that stands for human rights is strong. We must continue to be a global leader and keep working hard to protect these values and rights.

On that point, I would like to directly address an issue that has received important scrutiny in Canada: arms exports. Last summer we became aware of media reports on the possible misuse of Canadian-made vehicles in security operations in Saudi Arabia's eastern province. At that time, I asked officials at Global Affairs Canada to conduct a full and thorough investigation of these reports. Today I can confirm that officials at Global Affairs found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used in human rights violations. That was the independent, objective opinion of our public service and the advice given to me as minister.

That experience did, however, cause me to pause and re-examine Canada's export permit system. My conclusion is that Canada can and must do better. Canada is not alone in the world in taking stock of how we allow and monitor the export of arms and of the considerations that go into these decisions. I have spoken with my counterparts in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, among others, whose countries have all recently, in one way or another, questioned how arms are exported.

I am proud of the important commitment that our government made with Bill C-47. This would amend the Export and Import Permits Act to allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. This is the first treaty to tackle the illicit trade in conventional weapons, and it sets an essential standard for the international community.

It is long overdue that Canada joins many of our NATO and G7 partners by acceding to the ATT. We have heard support for the arms trade treaty from civil society, NGOs, and Canadians. We also heard the clear desire to do better. We need to be ambitious and strengthen Bill C-47. We had originally planned to place the criteria by which exports are judged, including human rights, into regulation, but we heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the Arms Trade Treaty criteria placed directly into legislation. This would include the consideration of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence. I can say today that the government would welcome this.

Going further than that, our government is today announcing its support for the inclusion of a substantial risk clause in Canadian law. Such a clause would mean that our government and future governments would not allow the export of a controlled good if there were a substantial risk that it could be used to commit human rights violations. A substantial risk clause would mean that Global Affairs Canada would need to ensure, before the export of controlled goods, that we have a high level of confidence that controlled exports will not be used to commit human rights abuses.

That is an important decision because it will have an impact on the way Canada regulates arms sales, but it's the right thing to do. Canadians are deeply committed to human rights for everyone, and they rightly expect exported goods not to be used to violate human rights.

I want things to be very clear. I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to Canada's controlled goods exports.

This is a significant decision. It will mean changes in how Canada regulates the selling of weapons. This is the right thing to do. Canadians fundamentally care about human rights for all, and Canadians rightly expect that exports will not be used to violate human rights.

Let me be clear: from this day forward I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard on the export of controlled goods from Canada.

I would also like to provide further clarity on one point. As a matter of broad principle, Canada will honour pre-existing contracts to the greatest extent possible. We can all understand and appreciate the fundamental importance of being able to trust Canada. We also understand the inherent importance of providing stability and certainty. Canada is a trusted partner around the world, and people must continue to be sure of the high worth of our word and our commitments. The world needs to know that an agreement with Canada endures beyond elections. This is important not only for international partners but also for Canadian companies and Canadian workers, who need to know they will be able to follow through on plans into which they invest their time and resources.

These two amendments will also provide clarity to industry by laying out the government's and Canadians' expectations for our export control process. We will work with Canadian industry to continue to provide it with appropriate guidance.

Mr. Chair, let me now turn to trade for one moment.

When it comes to NAFTA, we continue to work hard on the bread-and-butter trade issues at the negotiating table. Our goal is greater competitiveness, investment certainty, and growth in North America.

At the most recent round of talks in Montreal, we put forward some creative ideas with the view to establishing a constructive dialogue on certain key issues, including the rules of origin, investment dispute settlement, and ongoing modernization of the agreement. Serious challenges do remain, particularly with regard to the United States' unconventional proposal. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in Chicago, our objective is a good deal, not just any deal.

At the negotiating table, Canada always takes a facts-based approach. We are always polite and we are adept at seeking creative solutions and win-win-win compromises, but we are also resolute. Canada will only accept an agreement if it is in our national interest and respects Canadian values.

Finally, Mr. Chair, let me conclude with a few words about one of Canada's signature priorities for this year, our G7 presidency. This is a great opportunity for us to speak with a strong voice on the international stage.

During its G7 presidency in 2018, Canada will mobilize its counterparts on global issues requiring immediate attention, including by investing in economic growth that benefits everyone, by preparing for the jobs of the future, by working together on climate, ocean and clean energy changes, and by building a more peaceful and safer world. More specifically, we will promote gender equality and women's empowerment, and we will ensure that a gender-based analysis is conducted for each aspect of our presidency.

Mr. Chair, I will conclude by saying that, within G7 and the international community as a whole, Canada is continuing to defend a rule-based national order and to look for ways to strengthen it. We do this at every opportunity, while explicitly taking into account the relationship between peace, common prosperity, open trade and human rights.

Thank you.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to an export control system that is transparent, rigorous, and predictable. Our government is taking steps to further enhance our system through Bill C-47, which the member knows is at committee right now. We look forward to having that back in the House. That will help Canada take a leadership role in the regulation of exports of arms around the world. We have allocated $13 million to help Canada accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, and we will be sure to continue moving forward in that effort to ensure our controls are robust and effective, and they reflect our human rights considerations.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely committed to an export control system that is rigorous, that is transparent, and that is predictable. Our government is taking steps to further strengthen the export regime. We have allocated $13 million to help Canada accede to the arms trade treaty.

With Bill C-47, which we just spoke of, we are moving forward on a key campaign commitment to strengthen Canada's arms control regime and accede to that treaty. Bill C-47 would allow us to join our G7 and NATO allies by acceding to the treaty and playing a leadership role in regulating the trade of conventional arms around the world.