House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was exports.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for the list of much-need improvements that are potentially coming.

The problem is this. In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, my constituents care deeply about human rights and they also care deeply about well-paying jobs. When they look at what has happened recently with some of these arms sales, they tell me they are concerned that Canada's reputation, nationally and internationally, is one of caring more about money than about human rights. That is the message they give to me. That is where we are now.

The proposal we have from my colleague this morning is forward looking. How can we give Canadians more confidence in the future that Canada is doing the right thing about arms sales? A multi-party committee—I will not say all parties, respecting my Bloc and Green colleagues—looking at arms sales, making perhaps better decisions for Canada and its future, will potentially still ensure that there are well-paying jobs, but be able to change the opinion that many of my constituents have right now that the Liberal government cares more about money than it does about human rights.

Would the hon. member not agree that a multi-party committee focused on this issue may give a greater sense of confidence to Canadians as a whole and certainly the people in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia?

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kate Young Liberal London West, ON

Of course, Mr. Speaker, human rights are very important. There is no question here. That is not what we are debating.

The point is that we already have an international trade committee and an international foreign affairs committee, and it is within their rights to debate these very issues.

We take human rights seriously and we know these committees do as well, and we know that they will ask the appropriate questions to make sure the human rights issues are addressed.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the parliamentary secretary mentioned committees and in her initial speech she completely avoided speaking directly to the motion and the kind of procedural nature, which is the creation of a new standing committee, and really skirted the issue of relevance in this House, as I mentioned before when another member spoke.

Both the member for Thornhill and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said that there was a motion brought forward at the committee meeting to create a subcommittee to look at this specific issue, and it was voted down by the Liberal members.

For the parliamentary secretary, I ask why the Liberal members voted down that motion.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kate Young Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that by saying it would be redundant to have a subcommittee when we already have committees in place that can handle this very topic.

I question why members opposite do not respect that committee, why they think they should have another committee deal with this. This is exactly what these two committees are set up to deal with.

I want to also mention that this government cleared the decks from 2014 and 2015 and published the reports. We have now launched a consultation with NGOs and the industry on the transparency Canadians expect from these reports going forward. This is the information that the committees need and they will get.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada's defence and security industry is very much integrated into many other sectors of the economy, including aerospace, automotive, marine sciences, and cybersecurity; it supports close to 63,000 highly skilled and high-paying jobs across the country; and it contributes $6.7 billion to Canada's GDP.

There are levels of expertise from coast to coast, right across the country. Could the esteemed member from London West highlight the importance to her riding of these jobs in this industry?

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kate Young Liberal London West, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is so important to the people of London West, London—Fanshawe, London North Centre, Elgin—Middlesex—London that the jobs at General Dynamics Land Systems stay in place.

There is no reason for any of the questions about human rights to be discounted, but these jobs will continue as long as we as a government make sure the right questions are asked of everyone along the way.

It is important for all of us to stand behind this company and make sure the jobs continue.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the motion on the floor, I will start off by saying once again, as my colleagues have been echoing all morning in this House, that for too long Canadians have had too little information about our arms exports to countries with questionable human rights records. This has to change.

Liberals have not been been fully transparent with Canadians about our arms exports, but we have a right to know who Canada is doing business with and under what conditions.

There are increasing allegations that Canadian weapons are being used to commit human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan.

It is clear that Canada's arms export policy is not working, and it is really time to have a national conversation about arms exports, with a multi-party commons committee that would collaborate across the floor.

Human rights are not optional. If the government wants to show Canada that it is a leader in human rights, then it needs to ensure that it, and we, are walking the talk.

I was very moved at a ceremony in my community, in Nanaimo, right on the waterfront, on August 6, which is the anniversary of Hiroshima bombing. Members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, a very long-standing activist organization within our community, was talking about the UN vote that was coming up on nuclear disarmament. They shared my optimism that, given the campaign commitments around peace and security and restoring Canada's international reputation on the world stage, our Prime Minister was going to direct that Canada vote in favour of negotiations to end the nuclear weapons trade.

However, sadly, last month, Canada voted against negotiations for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was shameful. It was a shock to everybody. These nuclear negotiations had been called for by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; 68 countries ended up voting in favour of the motion, so Canada was on the outside of that international consensus; and the vote was called “the most significant contribution to nuclear disarmament in two decades” by one of the UN member countries.

The Liberal government's vote last month also flew in the face of a 2010 resolution, in this House, encouraging the Canadian government to join negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. The motion was adopted unanimously in this House and in the Senate, with support from all parties, including the Liberals. However, it was a real sad point that they did not follow through and carry on with that commitment that would have made us proud on the international stage. We want to move forward in a more positive way. There is more United Nations consensus with which our country can join.

A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact that armed conflict has on women, children, refugees, and internally displaced persons, as well as on other civilians who may have specific vulnerabilities, including persons with disabilities and older persons, and it stressed the protection and assistance needs of all affected civilian populations.

As the New Democrat spokesperson for the status of women, I want to bring a particular gender lens to the debate.

The United Nations and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer from sexual violence, rape, and lack of access to life-saving health care.

Amnesty International says women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict; women bear the brunt of war and are the vast majority of casualties resulting from war; rape and sexual violence target women and girls and are routinely used, not only to terrorize women but as a strategic tool of war and an instrument of genocide; systematic rape is often used as a weapon of war in ethnic cleansing; and, in addition to rape, girls and women are often subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.

In all countries, everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the fabric of a community in a way that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and the government. Six hundred and three million women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet considered a crime. Are we exporting weapons there?

In many countries there is repression, the silencing of abuse, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of women, human rights defenders, and activists. Are we exporting to those countries?

In some countries women are considered perpetual legal minors, permanently under the guardianship of male relatives. Are we exporting there?

In some countries it is actually legal for a man to rape his wife. Are we exporting arms to those countries?

We hear again and again that Canadians want to have more scrutiny over the destination of Canadian weapons, and they want to know that we are not exacerbating these human rights abuses in countries abroad.

At the NDP convention in April, Stephen Lewis gave a very powerful speech, and I quote:

We're not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a 'persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens.' Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word 'violations.' And the government of Canada refuses to release its so-called assessment of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. So much for the newly minted policy of transparency.

He went on to say that it was a huge pleasure to have a prime minister who unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist, yet is selling weapons to a regime "steeped in misogyny".

Is it not time that we looked more closely at the regimes we export weapons to? Polls show that most Canadians disapprove of arms deals to human rights abusers. Many Canadians would be shocked to know that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. While Canada used to export arms mostly to NATO countries, under the Conservative government our arms exports shifted to include many countries with very troubling human rights records. Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East, after the U.S. Saudi Arabia is now the world's second-largest buyer of Canadian-made military equipment, after the United States.

Our arms export rules were supposed prohibit the sale of military hardware to countries whose governments have a persistent record of seriously violating the human rights of their citizens. However, it is clear that our arms export controls are not working. While the government argues, as the Conservative government did before it, that Canada has strong arms export regulations, in recent months Canadians have grown increasingly concerned about Canadian arms exports falling into the wrong hands.

Canada does not control or track the use of its arms exports overseas. Worse, it was revealed in August that the Government of Canada has weakened its arms export policy to make it easier to export military hardware to states that abuse human rights.

We have a few pieces of good news, despite all of this tough stuff. I am very glad that the government has agreed to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. We look forward to seeing the details of that. It is a move in the right direction.

We do have a pre-election commitment from the Prime Minister. He said to the press that Canada must stop arms sales to regimes that flout democracy, such as Saudi Arabia. That was reported in the London Free Press on August 10, 2015.

We have a government that says that it is committed to equal rights for women and that it is deeply committed to transparency.

I urge the government, in the spirit of co-operation, to agree to a House committee that would provide parliamentary oversight of arms exports. This oversight is badly needed. We would have multi-party co-operation investigating current and future arms exports, and we can follow the example of other countries that have taken this step.

Let us move forward. Let us do the right thing collectively. Let us make Canada proud on the world stage again.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member, if she is not already aware, that the foreign affairs committee will be examining these sorts of issues in an upcoming study of the Special Economic Measures Act.

Committees are enabled to do this, whether it is the foreign affairs committee or the international trade committee. Committees already have the power to do this. Leave it to the NDP to come up with an idea for another level of bureaucracy.

The leader of the NDP had a position in favour of supporting the workers at GDLS, but then shifted that position. Did he inform GDLS? Has he informed the company? How would the member reply to questions and concerns from unionized workers at GDLS, who wonder about why the NDP said it represented them to begin with and has now reneged on that support?

The hon. member for Outremont has talked in glowing terms about his admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I am not sure where the NDP stands on these kinds of issues.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will say three things.

One, we are not proposing to end arms manufacturing or exports. I know there is a constituency in favour of that. However, this motion is about striking a committee to investigate the human rights records of our customers. Therefore, if we get our business in order, there is no reason that we cannot continue to manufacture arms within the right framework.

Second, the committee that the member described is not studying the human rights record of our arms customers. It is doing an economic study, not a human rights study.

Nonetheless, I was glad to have the support of the members opposite for our New Democrat opposition day motion on pay equity. In that case, we all agreed to strike a special committee to look at the urgent need to bring in pay equity legislation, an issue that has languished for 20 years. That committee met and did its work and tabled a report to the government.

Because I sit on the status of women committee, I know as a committee member that we have lists as long as our arms of the things we want to work on. The rationale for having an additional committee specifically focused on just this task is that it would be its only requirement. Many members of the House are not sitting on a committee and would certainly be able to lend their expertise.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the NDP is truly breathtaking. I have listened to the left for decades now, and all that those members do is spout anti-western rhetoric. “Disarm the west” is their mantra. They would have Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul all lay down their swords, their great words, and their military—

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I am sorry. We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of validity. I do not know why the member is attacking us over Pope John Paul when we are talking about exports to Sudan.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you request the member to stick to the relevance as to the idiocy of his discussion.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is a point of debate.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I will let that pass.

The hon. member.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, obviously these points need to be heard.

It is because of the anti-western stance by the left for decades and decades that Lenin called them “useful idiots”. It is because they quite clearly helped communism survive for many years.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, we must have some decorum, if he is starting to spout words like “idiots” in the House. We do not have mirrors here, so I would ask—

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Once again, I believe the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is bringing up debate.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Mr. Speaker, if the truth hurts, that is the way it is.

In terms of these arms sales, I agree with my colleague opposite that it is the workers in those industries who are truly important. The NDP members talk a great game about being the workers' party, but they are clearly the party of the elites. They want to see these people lose their jobs.

I would ask the member if they will go and ask the union to have those members eliminated from the union.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Before I go to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I want to remind the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that there is a process here. I would appreciate it if he did not scream at the people who are talking.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble figuring out what the question was in the middle of that tirade, but I will take the opportunity to say that I do not know any Canadian workers who want to have the kind of blood on their hands that we hear about, in some cases from very vulnerable people as a result of human rights abuses.

If we had a parliamentary committee that could look at the financial arrangements between sales and the receiving country, we could have more confidence in going forward. A lot of new information has come out about human rights abuses in the receiving countries since that deal was first discussed, and since the Liberals signed-off on it.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for moving the motion calling on Parliament to create a House of Commons standing committee on arms exports, in order to guarantee the parliamentary oversight that is truly necessary, given some of the contracts approved by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

My colleague's proposal is really interesting because it would enable members to scrutinize current and future exports and to give their opinions on the matter. It would also allow members to comment on the policies surrounding the sale of arms, including the Export and Import Permits Act. Finally, parliamentarians would also publish reports on the studies done by the committee in order to inform Canadians of the various issues related to arms exports, including human rights issues, in particular.

Why is it important that such a committee be created? I will first address the international context. The Middle East is currently embroiled in a number of incredibly intense conflicts, whether in Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, with Saudi Arabia intervening.

In Africa, the southern region of South Sudan, Libya, and Mali are extremely troubled. The common thread among nearly all those regions is the involvement of Canadian enterprises that are selling arms to authoritarian, if not dictatorial, regimes.

Journalist Alec Castonguay said in L'actualité:

During these two years, Canada also:

exported military arms and equipment to the tune of $882 million to countries where gay rights are non-existent or very weak, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria...

[Canada] sold roughly $860 million worth in military arms and technologies to nations where there is little to no freedom of expression or freedom of the press: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, China...Vietnam...

sent $863 million in exports to countries where there is little to no gender equality [as my colleague just mentioned]: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain...

made shipments worth $633 million to nations where criminal justice rights are ignored:...Turkey, Egypt, China...

This is an indefensible record. I hope that the Liberal government will change its policy and not just rely on its post-campaign slogan “Canada is back”.

The recent examples of arms sales fall far short of Canadians expectations when it comes to human rights.

I will begin by speaking about the most well-known contract, the Saudi arms deal. Last April, the Minister of Foreign Affairs quietly approved export permits for 11 billion dollars' worth of light armoured vehicles to be sent to Saudi Arabia, hoping it would go unnoticed. These vehicles may be equipped with machine guns and other guns of various calibres. These are not just Jeeps, as the Prime Minister likes to say. It is the government's duty to ensure that these vehicles will not be used against the civilian population.

Finally, between the election campaign and the minister's approval, the situation on the ground really changed. We are now in a war situation where increasing allegations and reports are being made against the Saudi army, particularly with regard to the national guard's use of Canadian equipment against civilian populations. We are particularly concerned about that.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that, if new human rights violations came to light, he would cancel the export permits. However, despite repeated calls from Canadians and non-governmental organizations to do something about the alarming situation in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is still sticking to his guns, if members will pardon the expression, and honouring the contract in full.

This is especially frustrating because the basis for cancelling or postponing a contract is not the existence of proof that Canadian arms are used, but the simple fact that they could be used. That is very serious. In fact, according to a number of allegations, Canadian arms could be used in cases of human rights violations.

For that reason the NDP is asking the Liberals to suspend export permits granted for the sale of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia while waiting for an investigation of the human rights situation.

In light of the international context and this very dubious sale to Saudi Arabia, rigorous controls for arms exports are in order. This is also about domestic policy and the transparency of government measures. Canadians must be able to obtain information from a reliable source, and that source must be a parliamentary committee created to study arms exports.

Since the beginning of this debate, we have heard many times about the United Kingdom, where the role of the committee on arms export controls is to provide information to the British people. Every year since 1999, members of this committee have published a report analyzing the export policy. The committee collects information not only from the government, but also from academia, business leaders, and public servants, who truly enrich the debate. The committee examines export data in light of ethical considerations. In the most recent hearing to be made public, a committee member took a stand and declared that selling arms to Yemen was choosing the prosperity of the United Kingdom over the lives of the people of Yemen. Arms exports are not just a trade issue and require that we think about respect for human rights, a very cherished Canadian value.

The war in Yemen and South Sudan is raising serious questions at Global Affairs Canada and not just in terms of diplomacy. I am talking about Streit Group, a Canadian company that uses its plants in the United Arab Emirates to supply its clients, including in Yemen and Sudan. However, this group was flagged by three separate UN review panels that oversee sanction enforcement mechanisms. They criticized Streit Group for selling hundreds of armoured vehicles to wartorn countries. Canada has imposed sanctions against each of these countries, including prohibiting Canadian citizens residing in Canada or aborad from selling arms and military materiel.

The Liberals asked the RCMP to investigate this group and its alleged violation of Canadian sanctions, as well as the UN arms embargos. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, Global Affairs Canada claims it does not want to disclose information on this matter, including whether trade commissioners helped Streit group.

The Americans fined that company several million dollars for failing to comply with these rules.

Considering their past actions and the present controversy, we need answers to a number of questions. For example, how did the Government of Canada support Streit Group in its commercial activities? Did Streit Group get help from Canada's trade delegates in the United Arab Emirates? How does Global Affairs Canada do due diligence on the companies it decides to promote? What loophole do we need to close to ensure that Canadian export rules apply to exports from manufacturing facilities located both here and abroad?

New Democrats believe that citizens have the right to be informed and to participate in the debate. They have the right to know if companies are complying with arms export laws and regulations. Certainly they should know if our own companies are following the rules governing our exports to the countries I mentioned and whether they are doing business with countries that are violating human rights elsewhere. This whole point of this committee is transparency. The government must be accountable to Canadians for its actions.

The NDP is asking the Liberals to move forward instead of backward and tear up the Conservative playbook. On this issue in particular, the Liberals promised change. They promised to ensure respect for human rights, but their policy did away with mandatory consultation of human rights advocates and the requirement to produce documentation on the end use of weapons. Not everyone knows this, but the law on human rights consultation has been watered down. Trade is taking precedence over all of our human rights concerns. That is really worrisome. Canadians have the right to get answers to these crucial questions.

I am ready to take questions.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting debate, but where do we draw the line? Can we make a subject simply black and white? In the indigenous philosophy, everything is holistic. It is interconnected.

Everyone wants human rights and no war. However, take cars, vehicles, and the environment. We all know that they are not a benefit to the environment and that they cause health problems, yet we all drive. Products are still delivered to our homes in vehicles.

I am proud that on May 17, 2016, Canada's foreign affairs minister announced the creation of the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. This new office stands on the work undertaken by the former Office of Religious Freedom by bringing these efforts together under a comprehensive vision that includes all human rights and addresses issues of respect for diversity and inclusion.

Human rights is a long walk to a better world. The current institutions of Parliament are ready and willing to study, investigate, understand, and report on human rights, and they can do so currently under the rules we have today.

Obviously I disagree with the member, but she can offer her comments about what I have said.

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports ReviewBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

However, the current House of Commons export monitoring rules are practically non-existent. Many experts have said that Canada has some gaps in terms of monitoring its arms exports. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports of multiple human rights violations in countries in conflict where Canadian arms have been used.

We therefore need to ask ourselves where we are at. We have the right to obtain information about the places and circumstances in which arms sold by Canadians are being used, whether they are produced in Canada or elsewhere. That is exactly why we are debating it today. We simply want all the facts to be known.

Over the next few years, we need to have a permanent committee looking into the upcoming export contracts in order to get that information.

If the Liberals care so much about defending human rights, why will they not support this motion?