Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think by amending this clause, it might help my colleague across the aisle with what he was trying to accomplish a little earlier in paragraph 5.

My amendment in clause 11 is to add after line 6, on page 6, the following:

For greater certainty, this section applies in respect of a firearm only if the firearm is included in the Export Control List; Brokering Control List or Import Control List and it is the subject of an application for a permit, certificate or other authorization under this Act.

For a bit of clarification on this amendment, the “for greater certainty” clause addresses the concern raised by Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It makes certain that brokering control does not include record-keeping for firearms that are not being brokered, moved from one third country to another third country. As confirmed by testimony from officials before this committee on Bill C-47, it is not affecting the domestic use of guns. Record-keeping, as required for importing and exporting firearms, is not introduced in Bill C-47. That has existed since 1947, even under the government of the Conservative Party.

This clause would provide greater certainty on those points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. O'Toole, please.

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

I'd like to thank my friend Mr. Sidhu for the amendment.

Colleagues, I haven't been in politics too long, but my time in government has taught me that usually when a government wants to usurp an idea from the opposition or stakeholders and claim credit for it, they vote down the Conservative amendment. Normally, you then introduce an amendment that stakeholders actually want. This wasn't the amendment that stakeholders wanted, and I think that is not lost on my friend. I think it's less than they wanted. It's something, but considering we thought—as Ms. May suggested—that we were removing the politics from this entirely and moving on, I was a little disappointed that it wasn't what the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Shooting Sports Association wanted. It's disappointing, but, what's the term, I guess it's better than nothing.

I want to thank my colleague for at least having something. I think it would be important for the minister and perhaps the parliamentary secretary to explain, after the delay and the appearance of our witnesses—and I know they've contacted the witnesses—why they did not proceed in a fashion that gave the witnesses certainty. At the very least, at least this is something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Okay.

Ms. Laverdière, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I oppose this amendment. As in the case of the Conservative amendment, I think this amendment is simply not necessary, given the nature of the Arms Trade Treaty.

For weeks, my colleagues opposite have been saying that the Arms Trade Treaty does not affect individual owners and so forth. We have heard plenty of testimony and now suddenly they put forward this amendment. It is quite ironic and a bit strange, but perhaps they will have the opportunity to explain their rationale.

I do not think this amendment is necessary. More importantly, it eliminates the requirement to report on the sale or transfer of arms without a permit, certificate or other authorization. The basic problem I see is that this obviously exempts all of our arms sales to the United States, which we do not agree on.

It is essential for us to have much greater transparency and complete reports on our arms sales to the United States. Exempting our arms exports to the United States violates articles 5 and 12 of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 5 reads as follows:

Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner, bearing in mind the principles referred to in this Treaty.

Let me read you the first paragraph of article 12:

Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the conventional arms covered under Article 2(1).

So there is no reason to exempt our arms exports to the United States. The Arms Trade Treaty is very clear in this regard: this also pertains to effective exports, so it should apply to our exports to the United States.

For the record, I would like to read out what Mr. Andrew Stobo Sniderman, who was the advisor to Stéphane Dion, former minister of foreign affairs, said about human rights. Since we have not had the opportunity to hear testimony from him in this committee, I will read out what he said in this regard.

The federal government says its new legislation to implement the international Arms Trade Treaty will increase transparency and accountability. That would be welcome news, given that we are talking about how Canada sells weapons that kill people.

Unfortunately, the proposed legislation leaves an exception as big as the rule.

Canada sends about half its arms exports to the United States—maybe more, maybe less, nobody really knows. That is because current rules do not require reporting on arms sales to the United States. It is probably more than you think, and our hands may be dirtier than you know.

There are two main reasons given in support of our current approach. First, it is best for business. The border barely exists for the defence industry, and that is the way integrated supply chains want it. Many jobs, families and seats in the House of Commons depend on a seamless flow of military goods, often parts and components.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair. Although this is all very interesting, I don't see the relevance to the particular amendment before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière, are you going to wrap it up at some point?

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

Yes, I'm nearly finished. It's not very long, and I think it's very relevant to the current exercise, because it talks about exempting those who are not a subject of an application for permits, certificates, and other authorizations under the law. That's about half of our exports and our exports to the United States, so I think this is very pertinent.

Thank you. I will continue:

Second, we like and trust the United States. Sure, Americans are the world's largest arms dealers and consistently provide weapons to useful monsters. And yes, for those who care to inquire it is rather easy to find American-made weapons shooting, bombing, and crushing civilians worldwide. But the Americans are our buddies, and they pay a lot of bills, so there are clear incentives to suggest their arms-export policy is more defensible than it really is.

Let me remind everybody that we're talking about the former human rights adviser to Minister Dion. He continues:

I am not arguing that arms should never be sold, and believe that properly regulated arms sales can be justified. Canadian weapons empower some dubious allies, but our enemies are often worse.

But the sale of weapons is clearly the kind of thing that must be tightly regulated. They are by their nature dangerous and liable to misuse. As we benefit from their sale, we have a responsibility to minimize harm. Profit is complicity.

As the human-rights policy adviser to this government's previous foreign affairs minister, my job was to ask questions like: if we really believe in increasing transparency and accountability in Canadian arms sales, does it make sense to exempt all sales to our biggest customer by far?

Or: shouldn't Canadians know more, for example, about how Americans are selling Super Tucano ground attack aircraft with Canadian-made engines to Nigeria? Fearsome military planes, for an often ruthless government, powered by the maple leaf: this is business as usual and we keep no public record of it.

Whether or not—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Chair, can I inject a point of order? I'm sorry to interrupt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I think the point has been made. Ms. Laverdière is clear in the argument and we know where it's going. I go back to what my colleague Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said. Frankly, I think we should call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

There are other amendments that need to be dealt with.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but my understanding was that, in this kind of situation, there is no limit on a committee member's speaking time.

I have nearly finished reading...

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière, it's not completely correct that it's unlimited. If the committee wishes to pass a motion to restrict the time for clauses, they certainly can do so. We've not chosen to do that, but if there's shown to be an abuse of this, the members can move a motion to reduce the amount of time for each clause. It's been done many times before. For the record, I just want to let you know. Please wrap it up.

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

Okay.

I will arrange for my colleagues to receive this very interesting article. It makes the important argument that there is absolutely no transparency about more than half of our arms exports. That is a serious issue, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Madame Laverdière.

It's Mr. Sidhu's amendment. I'd like to give him the floor before we move the question.

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

Thank you to my colleague for actually bringing the U.S. in. However, my amendment is strictly the witnesses' and stakeholders' response. We want to make sure that their concern is addressed. I want to repeat that Bill C-47 will not affect the domestic use of guns. The record-keeping is not required in this sentence. It's been there since 1947. That's the whole guts of the amendment.

Madame Laverdière is going on a different path, so I'll call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu. We've had a very robust discussion on this particular amendment put by Mr. Sidhu.

All those in—

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

I would like to have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We will.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 12)

We will now go to clause 12. You will notice that the Liberal's third amendment is consequential so it is approved.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now go to the NDP's fourth amendment, which is under Madame Laverdière, that Bill C-47, in clause 12, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 29 on page 6.

The floor is yours, Madam Laverdière.

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

Thank you.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete the lines that would add organizations to the list of exemptions in the Export and Import Permits Act.

I see a problem with adding the word “organizations”. First, it is very vague. I do not think it has been explained why it was put in Bill C-47. In the case of the sale of helicopters to the Philippines, we noted that the Canadian Commercial Corporation was involved. That corporation is an organization. Would that open the door wide for similar entities to circumvent the system we are trying to establish?

Honestly, I don't think there should be any such exemptions, especially since the treaty stipulates that it must be applied across the board and without exemptions. That is another weakness of the bill. It makes no reference to the Canadian Commercial Corporation or to the Department of National Defence. As I said, there was the case of the sale of helicopters to the Philippines, but how many other cases might there be? So I do not see any need whatsoever to add exemptions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Madame Laverdière.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Levitt.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I think that, with the way this amendment is written, removing the word “organization” creates some problems. Removing section 12 from the EIPA would be highly impractical. The EIPA deals with regulations, not just for conventional arms, but also for things like softwood lumber, meat products, sugar, eggs, and even peanut butter. Reducing the government's ability to create exemptions could cause problems for cross-border trade. I think that if we want to look at other examples of other countries.... For example, the Netherlands does not require a permit for any transfers to Belgium and Luxembourg, and vice versa. I think, for low-risk countries, we need to be able to continue to have that option available. Canada and the U.S. have a highly integrated market. The permit-free movement of goods for the benefit of the Canadian economy is long-standing, and it is something that we need to make sure this does not impede.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Is there any further discussion?

Madame Laverdière.