Foreign Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Ms. Laverdière.

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 the 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.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I think there is some confusion here. We are not talking about removing words from the current act, but removing words that Bill C-47 would add. The question was raised, but it would have no effect on the transportation of wood or steel. I see that my colleague is looking worried. We are talking about words that Bill C-47 would add and that we do not want. We do not want to change the current act.

I know my colleague will be speaking again, but first I would like to tell him that the arms trade between Belgium and Luxembourg and the arms trade between Canada and the United States are completely different. I am not alone in saying this; many experts have said it. We can always find someone who is not doing what they are supposed to do, but that is not an excuse, in most cases.

I see that my colleague would also like to pick up on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Mr. Levitt, please.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I thank my honourable colleague's comments there, but I have to say that the ATT requires that state parties assess all potential exports. It does not rule out the use of expedited procedures for low-risk countries. Again, I think that brings great relevance to the examples given.

Having said that, because there seems to be concern around the intent of this amendment in terms of adding or subtracting language, I'm wondering if I can indulge the officials to just give us some clarity on this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Ms. Gilmour.

[Wendy Gilmour]

Thank you to the members for the opportunity.

The amendment proposed in Bill C-47 is simply to add organizations into the existing language in the Export and Import Permits Act, because when we're considering brokering, brokering could cover the activities of partnerships and other types of organizations, beyond simply the definition of “person” in the act, which is a company incorporated under the laws of Canada.

I would just note that when we did a historical search of the use of this particular provision in the act, we found that the only time a regulation has been established to exempt certain persons from the EIPA was when individuals were acting in the course of their employment—for example, certain employees of a foreign state, visiting forces, air marshals, and so on, and certain Canadian officials acting in the course of other pieces of legislation. These are the only times that an exemption has been enacted as a regulation under this act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Is there any further discussion?

Madame Laverdière.

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

That confirms my argument. The intent of Bill C-47 is to add an exemption for organizations, but we do not want that exemption added to the current act.

With us here today are some former colleagues, as well as people from Global Affairs Canada. It is always a pleasure to see them. I would ask them therefore to confirm that the exemption would also apply to organizations such as the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

[Wendy Gilmour]

The Export and Import Permits Act does not cover the activities of the crown, and as a crown corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is not covered by the EIPA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Having had a robust discussion, we'll now move to put the question on amendment NDP-4 to Bill C-47, clause 12, by Madame Laverdière.

Would you like a recorded vote, Madame Laverdière? A recorded vote it shall be.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

We will now go to amendment NDP-5, which is the next amendment put forward by Madame Laverdière. It reads:

That Bill C-47, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 6 the following.

It's quite extensive, so I'll turn it over to Madame Laverdière.

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

This amendment requires all regulations to be approved by Parliament.

During the discussions on this bill, there was a lot of talk about including things in the regulations. Members from the government party constantly told us that it would be more flexible, more practical, more this, more that. In order to give ourselves real transparency, this amendment asks for the government to table the regulations in Parliament and for them to be referred to a committee for consideration before they come into force.

This is an amendment that we should all be able to accept. We have a government that is constantly saying that it wants to make the business of Parliament more transparent. This amendment, which ensures that parliamentarians will genuinely be able to review these matters in greater depth, is a step in that direction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madam Vandenbeld, please.

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

Thank you.

I commend the spirit of this particular amendment, but now that my amendment LIB-1 has passed and put the text in the legislation as opposed to regulations, I think the need for this amendment.... It was when we were looking at having it all in regulations and then having a chance to be able to scrutinize that.

Having said that, I also note that we have a parliamentary committee for the scrutiny of regulations. Committees can take up that kind of study at any time; it creates restrictions on the executive powers of the Governor in Council.

There are technical problems with this particular amendment. I also think it isn't needed as much because we've now taken the bulk of it—article 7—out of the regulations and we've put it into the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madame Laverdière, please.

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

Mr. Chair. I do not understand.

In all sincerity, there seem to be some clear contradictions. For weeks, we have been told that criteria are wanted in the regulations because that would give more flexibility if, at any stage, we wanted to add something, and then something else, and so on. We agreed that the criteria in the treaty will be included in the act. That is great, because the treaty itself is not going to change any time soon.

I had understood that members of the government party wanted to keep a measure of flexibility in case we wanted to add new criteria that would be too complicated to add to an act. So I assume that, if criteria that go beyond the treaty have to be added, they will be placed into the regulations. This amendment covers the possibility of having subsequent regulations. It would provide more transparency because it would really allow the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to come to grips with the issue. It would be done in a more public forum.

The amendment from the Groupe parlementaire québécois already been rejected; it asked for a system allowing parliamentarians, particularly those from this committee, to have the opportunity to consider these issues in greater depth. That was rejected. Parliamentarians providing follow-up of that kind would have provided quite a simple way of ensuring transparency. We will have to see.

Could someone explain to me why we suddenly no longer want more flexibility in the criteria? We have been told for weeks how important it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Madam Vandenbeld, please.

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

Very quickly, I'll go back to the fact that we have a parliamentary committee that scrutinizes regulations.

There are some technical issues with this amendment. I don't know if the officials want to go into details about it but, for instance, with the requirement that a regulation can only be made 30 sitting days after being tabled, you then have the problem that regulations couldn't be made when the House isn't sitting during the summer. There are issues with this particular one.

I think that Parliament's ability to scrutinize regulations is already very well set out. I don't see that this is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Okay. Seeing no further discussion—we've had a robust discussion on NDP-5—do you want a a recorded vote, Madame Laverdière?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 13 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21)

We are now on clause 21.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Chunk of clause by chunk of clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Chunk of clause by chunk of clause, if that's the wish of the committee.

Mr. Ste-Marie, go ahead, please.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, distinguished colleagues.

I would first like to set this amendment in context. The government publishes an annual report on the military material exported in the previous year. As those exports have already taken place, the information comes too late for any problems at all to be usefully raised. We want more transparency here. It is the same as groups like Oxfam, Project Ploughshares and Amnesty International asked for when they met with officials from the office of the Minister to discuss the matter.

The amendment asks for a report to be tabled each month in the House listing the exports approved in the previous month. As I told you, that would be a simple measure of transparency which, in my opinion, is an indispensable condition for public debate in all democratic societies. So this is about tabling a report each month.

Perhaps you are going to tell me that a lot of things are approved. But if the government can issue approvals monthly, it is also capable of submitting a report monthly. We are not talking about a huge pile of technical details, if we go by what is already being done.

Despite the amendments that have already been passed today, the government is still keeping discretionary powers for itself. We are asking to be informed each month so that monitoring can be done in real time, rather than one year later when everything is over and done with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, go ahead, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, once again, I would ask our Bloc colleagues to take a look at the intent and what we've done with the legislation, the way we've proposed it.

Previously, there was no onus on the minister to report. It was voluntary. This legislation makes it mandatory and the importance of doing this on a regularly scheduled annual basis is that the tabling of this report, I believe, will become a very important date in the parliamentary calendar, which Parliament and the NGO community will watch very carefully and be seized with.

Every time there's an export permit issued, every time having to table within 30 days....Shipments may take 30 days to arrive at their location. We don't know whether sometimes equipment might be stockpiled for three months or six months. The intent of greater oversight will, in fact, be lost and you would have pro forma tabling of reports on export permits on a monthly basis.

I understand what the intent is, and I agree with the intent, but I believe an annual mandatory report from the minister to Parliament will become a very important tool for Parliament to review arms trade, and for the NGO community, as well.

Although I support the intent, I cannot support this amendment.