Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, please, and then Madam Laverdière.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To my colleague, Mr. O'Toole, this is an example of the government working collaboratively with the opposition on a very important piece of legislation. We've listened to witnesses. We've listened to the opposition parties' concerns and in that spirit, we've proceeded with this. I believe that we should continue, in that same spirit, and hopefully, we'll see the same spirit displayed right around the table, as we go through this whole process. I would actually be supportive to allow—notwithstanding that, yes, Mr. O'Toole wasn't here when things started, and regular procedures—in the spirit of collaboration and co-operation, that we be able to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Ms. Laverdière, you may go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I realize that it's not regular procedure, but I think all of us here, at the table, understand that being an MP can be a bit complicated and that our primary role and responsibility is to act in accordance with our own views. Sometimes those views overlap, but not always. We have to do everything in our power to stand up for the interests of our country, our people, and our workers. That's definitely one thing we can all agree on.

I have to say that I don't support the amendment. That said, out of respect for the explanation we just received and the discussions we've had on the issue going back weeks now, I think it would be useful to take the time to discuss the amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Okay. That's clear. Is there unanimous consent, then, to nullify the vote on clause 5 and return to clause 5?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

(Clause 8 allowed to stand)

(On clause 5)

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Levitt, and then then Madam Laverdière.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Levitt.

Ms. Laverdière, and then Ms. May.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Although I was willing to discuss the amendment in the spirit of co-operation, I cannot support it, unfortunately.

Before discussing the substance of the amendment, I'd like to point out that, under the previous government, gun owners and sporting groups often had the opportunity to take part in negotiations in the U.S. I think that's great. The more civil society groups are included in those types of negotiations, the better it is. The problem, however, was that many civil society groups were never invited, and I hope that kind of selective approach won't be taken in the future.

Turning now, to the amendment, I don't think it's necessary. A number of witnesses told us that, even witnesses from the arms industry. In particular, Christyn Cianfarani, of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, comes to mind. Anna Macdonald told the committee, and I quote:

I think it would be unnecessary. The Arms Trade Treaty is about the international transfer of arms and ammunition between countries and territories that import, export, transit, and transship. It's not about domestic gun ownership, so I would see such wording as unnecessary.

If we were to go ahead and include an amendment that was not necessary, we could include all kinds of other things that were not directly tied to the Arms Trade Treaty. It would certainly be quite the bill, like some of the budget bills we see.

The problem is that, not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it could also be used to circumvent the rules. What's more, the amendment does not recognize that the brokering provisions in the bill apply to exports, and not domestic use.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Ms. Laverdière.

Ms. May, please, and then Mr. Aboultaif.

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

I'm enormously grateful, Mr. Chair, that you're allowing me to speak to this amendment, because it is your discretion.

I support this amendment. The mover may not appreciate it when I go on to say that it's the silliest amendment I've ever seen. It's manifestly not only unnecessary; it's absurd. When you read the Arms Trade Treaty, it's clear that nothing in the Arms Trade Treaty could possibly apply to the categories of use covered by this amendment.

There is malicious intent, and not on the part of the mover, because he's a lovely man. I find within the political partisan machinations around this bill that I've wasted a lot of time in the House defending Bill C-47 when I wanted to point out its loopholes, because I had to keep going back to the Arms Trade Treaty and reading out all the provisions to make it clear that this wasn't the gun registry domestically in disguise.

The best way for all people around this table to ensure that this is never an election issue is to pass this silly amendment from the Conservative Party.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Mr. Aboultaif, please.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thanks, Ms. May, on behalf of my colleagues.

I'm not so surprised by the position of Ms. Laverdière. I've heard the speeches. I spoke to this bill in the House of Commons. One of the main areas that we raised all the time was this clause. We got assurances from the government side at all levels that Bill C-47 will not come near or deny those amendments or at least what that clause speaks about.

That's just to freshen the memories of our honourable colleagues on the government side about those discussions. Hopefully, the assurances that we got during discussions will apply here and they will agree to pass this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will move to a vote on Mr. O'Toole's amendment.

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

Could we get a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

We will have a recorded vote on the amendment by Mr. O'Toole to clause 5.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

We are back on clause 8. There is an amendment by Madame Laverdière that Bill C-47, in clause 8, be amended by adding, after line 22 on page 4, the following....

I turn the floor over to Madame Laverdière.

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps I spoke too quickly earlier. Since some of the Liberals' amendments seem to cover what we are trying to accomplish with this amendment, I'm prepared to withdraw it.

I want to say that, although the bill still needs work, I'm happy to see that these improvements were put forward, few though they may be. Clearly, the bill needs a lot more improvement, but we can deal with that later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much, Madame Laverdière.

The amendment proposed by Madame Laverdière is withdrawn.

We will now go to Mr. Thériault.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to reassure my colleague that our objective is to include, in the bill, three of the most virtuous principles for parliamentarians. First of all, we'd like to see a better balance between executive and legislative authority. Second, we want greater accountability. Finally, greater parliamentary oversight and transparency are therefore needed at the legislative level.

As it stands, the bill's implementation rests entirely in the government's hands. It is not subject to any parliamentary oversight, aside from oral question period. That was clear in the case of Saudi Arabia, among others.

When the committee is of the view that a country's situation has changed and military equipment should no longer be exported to that country, the committee should have the authority to deal with the matter. In our view, the committee should be able to report to the House and, if appropriate, recommend that the permit be suspended or cancelled.

If the minister fails to implement the committee's recommendations, the minister would be required to explain the reasons why before the House. Note that the amendment does not take away all of the executive branch's authority. All we are asking is that the minister publicly state the reasons for their decision before Parliament. In that way, our amendment would achieve the three objectives I mentioned: accountability, transparency, and a better balance between executive and legislative authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect, I'd like to point out that this particular amendment has a redundancy in it, because committees are the masters of their own destiny. Committees choose their own areas of study. It isn't just in question period that we can have answers. Committees in fact have the ability. They don't require legislation to tell them what they should or should not be studying. There's a redundancy in this particular amendment when it comes to that particular issue.

There's also a concern because it seems to apply a certain onus, and there is commercial confidentiality in many of these cases. It's a very competitive business. Departments have to review confidential information in sometimes very strategic areas. So there's a problem with that particular aspect as well.

Consequently, I would suggest that this is not an amendment we can support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Okay.

Ms. Laverdière, the floor is yours.