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:
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.