Debates of Sept. 29th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Creation of a Standing Committee on Arms Exports Review

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member sits beside the chair of our foreign affairs committee, I quite agree with the remarks that the committee is applying itself very diligently and productively to the issues we have been assigned to investigate.

As I mentioned in my remarks about the Arms Trade Treaty, we have serious reservations about the possible encroachment, with the breadth of the treaty as it is written today, with regard to those Canadians who are legitimate hunters and trappers, quite law-abiding users of weapons that can be used improperly. However, on record in Canada, this is a major recreational sporting sector of our economy. Billions of dollars every year are invested and generated by this economy.

As I said in my remarks, little or no consultation, to my knowledge, has been undertaken by the government to speak to lawful gun owners in Canada about their concerns about what participation in and commitment to the ATT would mean to them.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and contribute to what I think is a very important debate. It is an honour for me to follow my colleague, our foreign affairs critic, someone who is doing a great job standing up for international human rights and for a principled and hard-headed approach to foreign affairs.

I want to congratulate the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for bringing this motion forward. As my colleague said, we will not be supporting it, but it has been a pleasure working with her on these issues, and I appreciate the knowledge and commitment she brings to them.

I think, in general, we see from both Conservatives and New Democrats in the opposition a different attitude toward the importance of international human rights than we see, unfortunately, at least from the front bench, in the policies on the government side.

I am going to make five distinct points.

The first point I would like to make is about the procedural grounds on which I, and we as the official opposition, cannot support this motion. As I mentioned during questions and comments, I, and my colleagues who were at the foreign affairs committee the day this motion was proposed, supported the creation of a subcommittee to study the issue of the arms trade. This would have been a very effective way of ensuring scrutiny of this issue and of integrating a discussion on arms control within the broader discussion of foreign affairs.

We have, of course, another subcommittee, a subcommittee on international human rights. The value of that subcommittee is that it feeds information through the foreign affairs committee to the House.

The use of subcommittees does not create the additional strain on House resources that a separate committee would create. It also ensures set-aside and cordoned-off time. The reason a subcommittee was not created is that its creation was opposed by all the Liberal members on that committee. It was something that we and the New Democrats agreed on at the time.

There are a range of different options for moving forward in a way that achieves some of the same objectives as this motion. It might even be worth contemplating a joint foreign affairs and defence subcommittee.

With regard to the study on this, the parliamentary secretary made it sound as if there were a current or imminent study by the foreign affairs committee on the issue of arms control. To my knowledge, that is just not the case. I believe that the committee is currently reviewing reports and is very soon to undertake studies of other very important matters, but it does not have an imminent plan to move forward on a study related to this issue.

I think we know who needs to be doing this job and where this job can be done. I do not think the creation of a stand-alone committee is necessary. However, the real impediment to the objectives the member in the NDP has talked about is the approach government members have taken on that committee. That is why, on some important procedural grounds, we cannot support the motion, although, as my colleague from Thornhill pointed out, there are many things, in substance, that are important to affirm.

The second point I want to make is that a strong and effective arms control regime is important, and it is particularly important to us here in the official opposition. My colleague laid out, very ably, aspects of the arms control regime we have in place and that we are committed to. They include, for example, the Export and Import Permits Act and the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. They include, of course, in the context of the LAV deal with Saudi Arabia, which we have discussed already and which I think will probably come up frequently throughout the day, the end-use permits to actually control and restrict the end use of those vehicles. There are mechanisms in place for responding if there are abuses, and we would expect the government to take those obligations very seriously.

My colleagues have been right to point out the important number of Canadian jobs associated with this deal. At the same time, we in the official opposition understand that who we are and the values we believe in have to come first. That is reflected in the approach we took: seeking opportunities for Canadian commerce but insisting, as a primary principle, on the protection of human rights.

The third point I want to underline today is that we must defend human rights, regardless of the cost. We have to be clear about our values. We have to talk about our values, and we have to recognize that in some cases, standing up for our values might involve sacrifices, whether commercial or otherwise. Who we are as a country, the values and principles that define us and reflect international norms that are rooted in ideas about human rights and universal human dignity, exists prior to purely material or economic considerations. In many cases, in fact, we can and do have both, but we have to be clear about human rights.

I think it is worth saying to the government, because there is not an acknowledgement in the way the Liberals talk about foreign policy, that there is such a thing as a moral absolute.

About a year ago, I listened to a speech given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the University of Ottawa where he talked about moving away from a purely principle-based ethic in foreign policy to one that he called responsible conviction. Really, it was a way of saying, as I understood it, that we should not be holding fast to these ideas of moral absolutes, that we should be evaluating our response in a sort of highly contextualized and situational way.

I think, conversely, that there is actually a need for moral clarity in a murky world, for a government that is clear about our values and is clear that there are certain fundamental principles of human rights on which we will not compromise. Whether it is in our dealings with Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Iran, or any number of other actors, if there is no such thing as an absolute when it comes to human rights, I would suggest that we cannot talk about a genuine commitment to human rights at all.

We, on this side of the House, believe in the need for Canada to speak with moral clarity, despite the murkiness of the world around us. That means calling out those who are egregious violators of human rights, and it also means being willing to talk about human rights with our allies.

The fourth point I want to make today in the context of this motion is specifically about Saudi Arabia and the Saudi system, because I know that it is an important part of what colours this discussion. I view the Saudi state as, in many ways, a contradictory entity, and therefore it requires what we might even call a contradictory response. In other words, we need to respond to the aspects of the Saudi state that we find objectionable, and we need to work with the aspect of the Saudi state that we can and should. That does not mean compromising our clarity about our values; it means recognizing the need to deal with different parts of the same state in different ways.

Of course, we know that Saudi Arabia is in some ways a conservative monarchy and that some of its international education programs play a role, perhaps indirectly, in fomenting extremism. This is a country with a terrible domestic human rights record, with an ideology that is very much, internally as it is expressed, at odds with our values. Yet it is a country that has historically had a more pro-western foreign policy, a country we have been able to collaborate with in certain respects that are important to the protection of our interests as they relate to our values.

My colleague spoke very well, for instance, about the need to contain Iran and the fact that although, again, Saudi Arabia's approach to Israel is nothing that could be misconstrued as pro-Israel, there is agreement about the concern Iran poses in terms of stability for the region. There is a shared concern, in fact, about the Iranian nuclear deal.

These are interesting things to observe in how we relate to the Saudis. Above all, it must be said that the Saudi state needs to survive, because if, under the present circumstances, there were to be a Syrian-style revolution in Iran, the consequences in terms of human rights as well as international peace and security would be absolutely devastating.

I will speak very briefly to my fifth point. On the strategic balance of power in the Middle East, it is necessary that we have an effective alternative to Iranian influence. We know about the major concerns with growing Iranian influence. To the extent that the partnership we have with Saudi Arabia allows us to combat Iranian influence, it is important for both human rights and international peace and security.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I appreciate the support the Conservatives are giving my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her efforts to create a subcommittee to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

My colleague did a fine job illustrating the fact that some very complex situations, including in the Middle East, sometimes require a contradictory policy. Sometimes diplomats are called to do very complicated work and Canada has to make tough choices.

This further motivates me to support the creation of a committee that will specifically address arms exports. This committee could keep working indefinitely on examining these evolving situations. In 1999, the United Kingdom created a similar committee.

Does the hon. member not agree that despite the limited resources of the House, this requires a thorough and ongoing study?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on this topic, though my colleague and I do not agree on all parts, we do agree on substantial parts of the direction here.

Here is the issue. He talked about having a committee that, in an ongoing way, studies these situations. That is not the proposal. It would not be a committee to study, in an ongoing way, the challenges of politics in the Middle East. It would be a committee specifically looking at one piece of that very complicated question, which is the issue of arms exports.

If the motion were to pass, the question would be how many standing committees the House should have. That is perhaps not as interesting a question as the underlying substantive debates about our foreign policy and arms control, but it is a question we have to consider in the context of how we vote on the motion, because we need an effective and cohesive system in the House for analyzing different issues. We have a foreign affairs committee, which can and should create subcommittees to address sub-issues. That is a more effective way to go. The impediment to that clearly has come from the government side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of human rights is something I have had the opportunity to speak a great deal on. When I reflect back on the Liberal Party, now the government, it is the party of the Charter of Rights. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Canada, which we all love and respect.

The late Izzy Asper founded the concept of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which was the first national museum that dealt with human rights and the many tragedies that have occurred around the world, such as genocides and so much more. Human rights is a very important issue for all of us, but I can say that from a party perspective, I do not believe we are second to any other.

We need to recognize that the government is committed to enhancing both the rigour and transparency of Canada's export control process. We are pursuing many parallel paths to do so, but foremost is ensuring that Canada becomes a member of the Arms Trade Treaty, the ATT. The ATT aims to stop unregulated arms transfers that intensify and prolong conflict, lead to regional instability, facilitate violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses, and hinder social and economic development.

I am wondering if the member would agree that this would, in fact, be a very positive step forward and this is something that we could be talking more about today, just how important the ATT is for all Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is the pot calling the kettle black. The member has spoken a lot about human rights, among other subjects. However, with respect to the issue of the ATT, my colleague has addressed this very clearly. It is important that the arms control treaty recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership, and there are some concerns there with respect to law-abiding citizens owning and using firearms for legitimate purposes.

On the issue of human rights, I do not dispute that there is a lot of human rights talk that has come from some in the party opposite. However, for us, when it comes to foreign affairs, we believe in an absolute commitment to human rights and that clearly is not present in the approach of the government.

I could give a wide variety of examples we have already seen from the government in terms of shifting foreign policy to de-emphasize international human rights. We have its negotiations, or not, or something similar but not quite negotiations, on extradition with China. The Prime Minister has said this is something that is going ahead.

We have the refusal to support our private member's bill on Magnitsky sanctions, a clear way of addressing human rights abuses in Russia. I do not know why the government is not supporting that. We have the elimination of the ambassador for international religious freedom and the creation of a new, so-called human rights department without its own ambassador, and effectively the downgrading then of an emphasis on—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We really do not like to cut members off. It is the last thing we want to do. Just give us a glance every once in a while and we will try to give you some cues as to when the time is coming to an end.

We have exhausted the time for questions and comments. Now we will go to resuming debate, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Burnaby South.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion moved today by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie. Obviously, it is a very important issue.

I would like to begin by expressing how disappointed I was to learn from this morning's debate that the Liberal government plans to vote against this motion to create an arms export review committee, despite its rhetoric about openness and transparency.

While recognizing the discourse on human rights, which we appreciated for the most part, and the support the Conservative Party offered to my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie regarding its proposal at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to create a subcommittee on the issue, I am still disappointed that the Conservatives will not be supporting the motion.

When I heard the parliamentary secretary's speech, I felt a bit of déjà vu. That was exactly the kind of speech I used to hear in the previous Parliament. We were told that no such committee was necessary, because we already had the tools required, we needed to put the economy first, and so on. I am extremely disappointed.

With regard to economic issues, I have to say that the beauty of creating this committee is that it will allow us to study all aspects of the issue. At present, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is too narrow. Furthermore, the great thing about creating this committee is that it provides an opportunity to study international trade, Canadian defence and industry policies, as well as to examine issues related to foreign affairs and the protection of human rights. All these issues deserve serious consideration.

The government argues that this committee is not needed because the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is currently conducting a study. The House and Canadians are being misled. Why? First, the Arms Trade Treaty requires that we study its implementation and any legislative amendments. That is only one specific aspect.

Furthermore, members know that a committee conducts studies and hears from witnesses. However, to be honest, the time available is very limited. We sometimes would like to study the subject in more depth. However, a bill may require a change to the timetable, which can affect the committee's work.

Given all these limitations, the human rights abuses in various countries to which Canada exports weapons, and Canadians' legitimate concerns, we firmly believe that this issue deserves further study on an ongoing basis.

There is a precedent for this. In 1999, the United Kingdom created a similar committee responsible for conducting the same type of examinations, for example, a review of the government's annual report. In addition to conducting an in-depth study of these issues, the United Kingdom's committee also submits an annual report on arms exports and hears from many witnesses.

I heard some Conservative members asking if there will ever be an end to the creation of standing committees. They were wondering whether we are going to create a committee for every issue. In my opinion, the issue before us warrants the creation of a standing committee. Why? Because Canada's arms exports have increased. In fact, Canada has become the second largest exporter of arms to the Middle East after the United States, and that raises many concerns. Of course, we also think a committee should be created for the same reasons that the parliamentary secretary talked about in her speech. She mentioned this industry's importance to Canada several times.

In my opinion, that is just one more reason why we should create such a committee. It would allow us to conduct a parliamentary review and monitor this important industry on an ongoing basis.

The NDP and I believe that the most important thing is human rights. The interesting thing is that I know that members are going to quote things that were said during the election campaign. There is no contradiction there. What we are asking the government to do is to keep its promise to be open and transparent and to give more power to parliamentarians who are not in cabinet. A committee like this one would allow us to meet those objectives. It is disappointing to see the government rejecting this solution, particularly after all its talk about openness and transparency.

Nonetheless, let us come back to the potential criticisms. Look at all the information that has come to light since the election campaign. We even saw videos posted by the Globe and Mail showing how Saudi Arabia uses these arms or these jeeps, as the Prime Minister likes to call them. Let us be honest, these are very serious problems and this new information gives us pause for thought. This is not a matter of having a contract, but a matter of issuing export permits. That is a very important nuance that the government and the minister do not seem to grasp.

The minister told the House that he would be prepared to reconsider if he were given new information, but he is not keeping his word. That is one more reason to create a committee to address this issue, so that parliamentarians are not hampered by the minister's discretionary power. We have to be able to conduct this study ourselves without being hindered by the existing committee. In light of the Liberals' refusal to create a subcommittee on arms exports, we find that we cannot rely on the good faith of the existing committee. We have to form a specific committee to study this matter thoroughly.

I wonder why the Liberals are afraid to create this committee. I have yet to hear a strong or convincing argument from a Liberal member to justify their refusal to create this committee. All the parties are saying the right thing about respecting human rights abroad. So why not allow parliamentarians to monitor the situation and report to the House to help us keep our international commitments and uphold our values of protecting human rights?

I am very concerned because we are being told in no uncertain terms that we do not need this committee and that there are not enough resources. They are also quoting irrelevant snippets from the campaign. We want to hear a real argument against the creation of a committee.

After all, the Liberals would have a majority on the committee. They need not fear being backed into a corner, being made to feel ill at ease, or pushed into doing something the government does not want to do. We just want to ensure that the process is transparent so that Canadians can once again have confidence in the system.

These are the same arguments that we raised yesterday when debating the creation of an oversight committee for national security agencies. This is not just about reviewing facts and involving parliamentarians; it is about our relationship with Canadians. Opinion polls and our conversations with Canadians indicate that they have lost confidence in this process, especially since Canada does not monitor its arms exports.

Despite the parliamentary secretary's comments about the excellent regulations we have and the assessments carried out by Canada before exporting arms, it is also important to follow up because the world is quickly changing. As was said several times this morning, there are very complex diplomatic situations around the world. I would hope that the government recognizes the importance of monitoring these situations.

In closing, Canadians are increasingly becoming citizens of the world. We know that people care about protecting human rights. Canada has values and international commitments.

Government members keep repeating their famous empty phrase, “Canada is back”. However, those are just words. We do not just want to hear them say it. We want them to make it a reality. We want real transparency and we want them to create a committee that will examine this issue and give power back to parliamentarians and, by extension, to Canadians, so that they can again have confidence in their institutions and the work we are doing.

This increasingly worrisome situation must be monitored in order to protect human rights. That is why I am pleased to support the motion of my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I hope that the Liberals will see things the same way, regardless of the government's position.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I already believe that Canada's export controls are some of the toughest and most transparent in the world, but there's always room for improvement.

I believe Canada should also become a member of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. However, it already meets many of those obligations. In fact, Canada is one of the reasons that arms trade treaty was implemented, a treaty that is becoming even more widespread around the world. However, we do not apply with respect to two of the articles: article 7, which deals with export assessment criteria and overriding risk tests; and article 10, which deals with brokering.

Could the member explain why we should create another standing committee and how other standing committees that we already have in Parliament can address the review, the investigation, and the understanding of this issue?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, Canada should have acceded to the Arms Trade Treaty a long time ago. We are pleased to see that today. However, it is just one piece of the puzzle. The government is focusing on that aspect of the issue, but we want to examine a broader issue.

As I pointed out in my speech, the government believes that the existing regulations are adequate, but there is no follow-up. The situation is changing rapidly and such a committee would allow us to monitor it.

Take for example Saudi Arabia and the information that was made public, including the videos that were posted following the election.

My colleague mentioned that there are other committees, but the issue before us extends well beyond the mandate of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

The United Kingdom set up a similar committee and it is working well. Why not do the same thing here in Canada?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I listened to closely.

He called on the government to give a real argument against forming a committee. I would ask him to explain why the NDP did not support the Bloc Québécois amendment calling for all parties to be represented on this committee, whether they are recognized or not.

In his speech he talked about a democracy that should go beyond words and move into actions. I would turn the question back to him. I would like the democracy promoted by the NPD to go beyond words and move into action.

Why did the NDP not accept the Bloc Québécois amendment? Let them stop hiding behind the rules.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not hiding behind any rules, on the contrary. It is thanks to the NDP that the Bloc Québécois was able to participate in the special committee on electoral reform and I am very proud of that.

The matter before us right now concerns the creation of a standing committee. I am not at all hiding behind the rules, which are open and transparent to everyone. That is the reality before us.

At the end of the day, the ball is in the government's court, and it is important that it support the proposal in order to ensure real transparency when it comes to arms exports.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which, as usual, was delivered with confidence and aplomb.

As he mentioned, human rights are part of the arms sales issue. In light of that fact, we need to remember that, as a member state of the United Nations, Canada has certain international obligations. For example, article 55 of the United Nations Charter requires member states to promote respect for human rights in their international relations.

If we want Canada to be an important player on the world stage and to be taken seriously, is it not time that we respect these international obligations?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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

Yes, as he said, it is time that we honour our international commitments. That said, we need to get the ball rolling here, at home. If Canada intends to step onto the world stage as an instrument for peace, an advocate for human rights, and a constructive voice in what are sometimes very difficult debates and discussions, it must start here.

We need a government that is willing to delve deep into these issues. Before it can lecture others, the government must ensure that all the right things are being done at home and that we are honouring the same principles that we expect others to follow.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed listening to the debate.

My colleagues have outlined in a very good way the details of this motion, why it is important, and some of the objections that should be taken into consideration.

From my perspective, I think we have perhaps lost the plot a little. Maybe I can start with a bit of a story about what we are supposed to do in this place. When I was elected 2011, one of the first decisions I was asked to make was whether or not I would support the mission to send fighter jets to Libya. This decision, for new MPs, was very difficult, as it was for all parties involved. I believe the motion was to support a mission against Moammar Gadhafi, who was an international scourge and one of the worst human rights offenders in history.

What me struck me during those discussions, both inside and outside this place, was that we were really talking about killing people. That is what we are really talking about if we send to fighter jets to Libya or arms to Saudi Arabia. In the end, as parliamentarians, we are deciding who is going to live and who is going to die, in one way or another. That should really underscore the discussions we are having here today.

This is why Parliament and democracy are important. In dictatorships, which we oppose because they are not the proper way to run governments or countries, it is usually a person or a small group of people who decide to make these decisions about who will live and who will die within their own countries, and then when they engage in military actions against other countries.

However, in a democracy, we are supposed to come to places like this Parliament and the Senate to discuss in a very open and transparent way how we regard our standing in the world, and to say whether or not we should engage in certain actions.

I think that is all we are talking about here. It is really the same thing. It is not about a direct motion, that is, whether or not we should take direction action in a country, whether to support or oppose a certain regime, but it is more of a macro discussion about how we see ourselves in the world, how we make decisions, and in this case whether or not we should sell armaments to particular countries. That should probably underscore this discussion.

We have a global affairs committee that discusses foreign affairs. I understand there were proposals made for subcommittees. This is a proposal for a new standing committee. I think that Canadians who are looking at this debate would really like us to get down to the issue of how we as parliamentarians will discharge our duties in making these very important decisions, to which they are also attached because they vote for us. Voters vote for MPs in various political parties, and we come to this place and make decisions, some of which have lethal consequences or result in the loss of human life in various countries.

Through this debate, Canadians will be shocked to know that our arms exports have doubled over the last decade. In fact, it might be one of our dirty little secrets. Canadians like to see themselves in a particular way. They like to think that we are going around the world in blue helmets keeping the peace. Our past Nobel Prize efforts at peacekeeping, again, are the ones by which Canada really emerged on the world stage.

We like to think of ourselves as givers of aid and generous contributors to reducing poverty around the world. However, through the course of this debate, Canadians will find out that we have doubled our arms exports. We are now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East.

Therefore, it is a clash of values that we have here. Canadians who are watching this debate or reading about it in the media would think that the decisions the government is making, and that past governments have made, clash with how they see themselves as a Canadian.

This place is for that. There are difficult choices to make. Weather we approve arms sales to one country or another is decided here, and it should be. Decisions have been taken now, both within the industries that produce these arms and the government bodies that approve the sales and export to other countries. I think many Canadians would say that this does not jive with their view of what Canada does, which is okay.

Again, this place is for that. It is for us to come to discuss the facts that are behind every decision we have to make, to ensure we get them straight. We debate in a public way, on TV, with recorded minutes and vote as to what should be done. Decisions are taken, and the those decision have their effects.

The result of these decisions are that people will die. We cannot sell arms to a country and think that they will not be used, especially small arms and vehicles that have small arms attached to them. Therefore, this is worth debating in more detail to ensure we get the facts. I think most of my colleagues in the House would agree that these are probably the most important issues we talk about here.

The mechanism does not interest people, whether it is a standing committee, subcommittee, or a special committee. I do not think that makes a tonne of difference. However, When we make decisions as grave as this and evaluate decisions about whether we should be compliant in someone's death, Canadians expect that deserves significant debate.

Therefore, because we have had new facts come to light about these sales, and we are not clear about how these deals have transpired, the short-term details about who benefits and who is not, or the long-term impacts of this deal, we propose that we have a standing committee.

Of course, in terms of a procedural decision, that is a fairly big one. Starting a new standing committee is a significant commitment. However, the issue that the committee would be studying is so important. It is probably one of the most important things at which we will be looking. It is reviewing our roles in participating in the deaths of people around the world.

Sometimes those military interventions are necessary. As I said, I voted to support the mission in Libya after a lot of deep thought. Again, that was approved unanimously in 2011.

However, this proposed standing committee would give us room to not only talk about decisions regarding arms exports, but also to review the impacts of these things. We could get regular reports from experts in this area, have a better understanding of our own arms industry, and have briefings, because the world changes. Places that are at war now will soon be at peace, and places at peace now unfortunately will be at war at some point. Therefore, committee members could get briefings on this and have very wholesome discussions.

There are a couple of things going on that are worth pausing for a second. I know the parties all have their entrenched votes scripted of where they will go. However, I would ask members to take a pause and think about the issue we are dealing with here, which is grave. It is one of the most important things we will decide as parliamentarians. Members should ask themselves if these types of decisions actually deserve a space of their own.

In my over five years as a parliamentarian, I would have welcomed this idea. It would be a committee that would have great merit, but that a subcommittee would not be enough. However, the committee would need a good degree of independence in order to look at all of these issues in great detail. Therefore, I urge the government to have a rethink on this and not dismiss this idea out of hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, in London, Ontario, the city I represent, General Dynamics Land Systems is a very important company, employing over 2,000 people. It is central to the defence sector in that city and it is central to the defence sector in our country.

Could the hon. member tell the House why the NDP supported the work of the company, but now has changed it position? Did the New Democrats call the company to tell it this beforehand? Have they reached out since? Would the hon. member and his leader accept an invitation to come to London to visit General Dynamics, speak to the workers and really articulate and underline the implications of what they have called for and the job losses that would result? This is coming from a party that says it is represents the working class.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have very able members who represent London and have for a long time. That is the kind of fogged question that just seeks to score political points rather than have actual debate. At issue here is the creation of a standing committee to review these issues. It is not to cancel particular deals, or not to support particular deals. It is to understand them better and to ensure we have the kind of debate we need so Canadians get the information they need.

I am not sure why the Liberals would not approve such a committee. They have not offered any kind of solution other than to throw things out that do not really matter. I would ask them to consider this motion and perhaps if they do not agree, to put up their own proposal as to what we could do instead.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear my colleague's comments on human lives. This is a life-and-death issue, but the Liberals think it is in the same league as jobs created in the industry. Even the people who work in those industries feel uncomfortable knowing or suspecting that the weapons they make will probably be used to violate human rights in other countries.

In June, the Liberals announced that Canada would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, which requires states to monitor arms exports and ensure that those weapons are not used to violate human rights. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International want the United Nations General Assembly to immediately suspend Saudi Arabia from the Human Rights Council because of its gross and systematic violations in Yemen.

Mounting reports and evidence prove that our weapons have been found in places where human rights are being violated. Our proposed committee is the best way to study where, when, and how the weapons we export are being used. It makes perfect sense to me that Canadians should have transparent access to that information, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we are respecting international rights.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments as always. It does not have to be a jobs versus killing people kind of debate. People who work in these industries work very hard and do nice jobs. I think it would be assuring for them to know that this committee had thoroughly studied their deals and had given them a seal of approval rather than have this kind of fog around the products they produce. I see that as a win-win. I do not see this as killing jobs in any way. It is developing a better understanding of what is the very important issue, which is Canada's role in what eventually is that people die. Again, that would make Canadians feel much more comfortable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from London West.

I rise today to speak about the government's commitment to human rights. I do so as a parliamentarian, as a member representing a city that thrives because of the defence sector in part, and as someone who has taught human rights policy for a number of years at Western University. This is an issue I take extremely seriously.

The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada's constructive engagement in the world. We view human rights as universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated.

We have all seen how hatred and xenophobia have taken root. A record number of refugees are now displaced. Everyone has to do more to protect the most vulnerable and marginalized people in the world today. We do this by embracing diversity.

Last week the right hon. Prime Minister spoke in front of the UN General Assembly and told the world that Canada was stronger, not weaker, because of our differences. He said that we should embrace diversity. As a multicultural, multi-faith and inclusive society, Canada is well positioned to champion peaceful pluralism, respect for diversity and human rights internationally.

How do we do this? Canada is enhancing and expanding its efforts through multilateral organizations, bilateral engagement, development assistance, and trade and policy services. The UN is the main forum where we advance our international human rights objectives.

Canada actively participates as an observer at the UN Human Rights Council and is fully engaged in the UN General Assembly's Third Committee. Canada is also party to seven UN human rights treaties, which are established treaty bodies to regularly monitor state compliance. Canada actively participates in the universal periodic review process, which evaluates the human rights performance of all 193 UN member states at regular intervals. Canada was last reviewed in 2013 and will be up for review again in 2018.

The promotion and protection of human rights is an integral part of Canada's development programming and humanitarian assistance. Our development programming integrates the principles of inclusion, participation, equality, and non-discrimination. Our humanitarian assistance ensures full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with international law.

With regard to trade, Canada expects Canadian companies operating abroad to respect human rights and promote improved performance through the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, and the voluntary principles on security and human rights, showcasing Canada's updated corporate social responsibility strategy as well.

Canada's missions abroad foster partnerships between companies, governments, and civil society to promote respect for human rights. Canada consults regularly with civil society organizations both at home and abroad through a network of missions, including our permanent mission to the UN and Geneva and New York. Canada is a strong advocate at the UN for the full participation of civil society. This is becoming increasingly important given the efforts of some countries to limit civic space both at the UN and more broadly.

Canada also acknowledges the important leadership role played by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Canada is directly contributing $50 million to the office over the next three years.

Canada also works to advance international standards on important issues and promotes human rights around the world in a variety of multilateral fora ranging from UN bodies to the G7. For example, Canada is advancing the rights of women through our membership on the UN Committee on the Status of Women. Key issues for Canada related to the rights of women include addressing violence against women, sexual and gender-based violence, improving maternal newborn and child health, women, peace and security, gender equality, and women's economic empowerment. Canada was elected a member of the Commission on the Status of Women in March 2016. Canada is also a strong supporter of the UN Security Council Resolution on Women, Peace and Security.

Canada is an active promoter of the rights of children and has helped to lead international efforts to end child early and forced marriage. Canada was instrumental in bringing the issue of children in armed conflict to the international agenda, and continues to support efforts to eliminate violations of children's rights in conflict.

For the past 13 years, Canada, in partnership with a strong cross-regional group of similarly concerned countries has successfully led an annual resolution at the UN General Assembly on the situation of human rights in Iran. This fall, Canada is leading this resolution again.

Canada has joined the global movement to support the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. Our embassies around the world support grassroots LGBTI organizations that are fighting against discrimination, violence, and unjust laws. In July, the foreign affairs parliamentary secretary attended a global conference of LGBTI human rights and joined with 29 other countries to found the equal rights coalition. Canada is also a founding member of the freedom online coalition, which seeks to protect and promote people's human rights online. We also work bilaterally and multilaterally to promote Internet freedom, which remains a key component of open democracy.

Canada's international support for human rights extends to other areas as well. We oppose the death penalty and support the abolition of the death penalty internationally. Our government will undertake clemency interventions in all cases of Canadians facing execution in foreign jurisdictions.

Canada recognizes the key role played by human rights defenders in protecting and promoting human rights and strengthening the rule of law, and we are committed to supporting their work. We are concerned that through new legislation and increasingly harsh tactics, governments and other actors are restricting civil society, promoting discrimination against individuals from vulnerable and marginalized groups, and threatening human rights defenders and other civil society actors.

Canada believes strongly that freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right. On May 17, 2016, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the creation of the office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion. The new office expands 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.

Of course there is much more to be done. We will continue to seek out opportunities to strengthen human rights around the world. I have highlighted the human rights element to all of this because it is important. If we look at the comments of my hon. colleagues in the NDP, they are discussing human rights, as they should be. It is an important value.

I also wish to discuss an economic element to all of this. Economics matter for any member of Parliament, but since we are discussing issues that have a direct impact on London, Ontario, being the member of Parliament representing London North Centre, it would be remiss of me not to mention the importance of General Dynamics Land Systems to the London economy. This company employs over 2,000 people. The result is that $230 million is injected into the London economy each and every year. London has been hard hit by the loss of manufacturing. This advanced manufacturing sector that we see propelled forward by GDLS is incredibly important. We are also talking about 10,000 indirect jobs in the London region. These are well-paying, middle-class jobs that put food on the table, that allow middle-class families to send their children to school, and to raise their families in a prosperous way.

GDLS also works to support and sustain a network of 500 suppliers in all regions of Canada. That is incredibly important for the House to understand. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about members of Parliament who represent ridings across the country that benefit because of GDLS. GDLS also employs 650 engineers, and tens of millions of dollars have been invested in research and development. As the government and the country moves toward an innovation agenda, as we should, this is the sort of example that highlights the importance of a firm such as GDLS.

My colleagues opposite have shifted positions. They supported the work of GDLS but now they do not. I invite all members of the NDP to come to London to speak to the employees of GDLS and explain clearly why they have changed their position. Why did they support the work of GDLS? These are working people, represented by Unifor. Why have they shifted their position? I beg of them an answer.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague actually read the motion, because that is not the position that is in question. What is actually in front of us is a motion to create a committee to study the export of arms. In fact, I think that is something he could appreciate, because I am looking over the comments he made in the last election. Even before that, in 2011, he actually called Saudi Arabia's princes “tyrants”, comparing them to such colourful characters as Colonel Gadhafi, the shah of Iran, and Saddam Hussein. When he was asked how he reconciled that with the position he now has, he said, “I was elected on October 19th. I can't say I've had as much time as others have, in the previous government, for example, to look at this and analyze it.”

That is great to hear because we want to give him that opportunity with the creation of this committee. We are not flip-flopping here. We just want members like him to be able to sit down with experts and witnesses, and analyze this so we can better understand the role Canada is playing with the export of arms. What does he think of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the hon. member recognizes that there are indeed committees in place that can look at the kinds of questions members have put forward. The trade committee, for example, and the foreign affairs committee have this ability.

As for comments that I have made, I have indeed criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record. It is a concerning human rights record, but the way to push countries to change is not by walking away, it is by actually engaging with countries. We do not walk away. We engage. When we are at the table, we can criticize; when we walk away, we cannot.

The member does not answer the question. Why did the NDP shift its position on GDLS? Why did the New Democrats support the workers, and why have they abandoned them now?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the member's speech and I noticed, just like the member for Beloeil—Chambly, that he distinctly avoided dealing with the contents of the motion. He was skirting closely, I believe, the issue of relevance in this chamber, which is Standing Order 11(2), if I remember correctly.

What we are dealing with is whether we should create an arms trade committee, a standing committee of the House to specifically deal with one issue. I personally disagree with putting new committees together to deal with a single specific issue. I think it could have easily been dealt with by the foreign affairs committee. As we heard earlier today from the member for Thornhill and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, there actually was a motion to create a subcommittee to deal with this issue but the Liberal members voted against it.

I do not want to hear what the government is doing because this member is not a member of the government; those are the members in the front bench. What I want to hear is what we as parliamentarians can do. Why did those Liberal members vote against creating a subcommittee to deal with this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, there are committees in place that can look at these sorts of questions. I believe the hon. member shares that view. In fact, I'm quite happy he asked the question because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that the foreign affairs committee, of which I am a member, will be looking at sanctions policy in the coming weeks and months. The questions that have been raised in the opposition day motion by the NDP will be looked at.

The New Democrats realize that full well, so there is political gamesmanship going on here. If in my speech I have highlighted human rights and talked about the economic importance of the defence sector to London, Ontario, and to Canada more generally, it is because the motion is frivolous. It is based on politics. There are very important issues to discuss here: issues of human rights, issues of economics. I invite all the hon. members of the NDP, and of the Conservatives if they wish, to come to London to visit the folks at GDLS. They are doing great work. I just hope the members continue to support them, certainly in the Conservative Party. However, the NDP has walked away. I do not know why.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak to this very important topic. It is encouraging that members of the House share the interest of our government, and all Canadians, in maintaining high standards for peace, security, and human rights.

A key priority of Canada's foreign policy is the maintenance of peace and security. In line with that, Canada has some of the strongest export controls in the world, which are very much in line with those of our allies and security partners. All exports of controlled goods and technology, including military goods, are carefully reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with these objectives, as well as with other key foreign policy objectives, such as the protection of human rights.

In addition, our government is enhancing the rigour and transparency of Canada's export controls with respect to military and strategic goods and technology. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated earlier this year, the government is undertaking measures in a number of different areas.

We will be joining the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty, the ATT. This treaty aims to stop unregulated arms transfers, which intensify and prolong conflict, and creates common international standards for the export of weapons. In order to do this, we will make all of the necessary changes to legislation and regulation to be able to implement all of the treaty's obligations.

It is important to recognize that Canada meets nearly all of these obligations already. However, some additional work is required. That being said, I would like to underline that the treaty was designed to bring other countries up to the high standards of export control that Canada already has in place.

The criteria we currently use to assess export permit applications, which have been implemented through policy for many years, will now be a legal requirement.

Canada will also implement controls on brokering activities by Canadians who facilitate the transfer of arms between third countries. This is a new regulatory area for Canada, and we are consulting with industry and NGOs on how best to implement this obligation. We will introduce legislation to enact the necessary changes, with the goal of ensuring that Canada has all of the necessary laws and regulations in place so that we can accede to the Arms Trade Treaty in 2017.

We are also making changes to improve transparency, specifically by making more information about exports of military and strategic goods available to Canadians. Annual reports on how the Export and Import Permits Act is being administered and annual reports on exports of military goods from Canada will now be more transparent, more user-friendly, and more informative, and will be tabled in Parliament on time, beginning next year.

Of note, on June 17 of this year, at the same time as the Arms Trade Treaty was being tabled in the House of Commons, the government also cleared the decks from the previous government and published the 2014 and 2015 reports on exports of military goods and technology from Canada. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed, these reports will now have a fixed date for publication, and this date will be enshrined in legislation for May 31, each and every year.

These are substantial improvements over past reports. However, we intend to go further. Relevant stakeholders, including NGOs and industry, are being consulted on how we can make these reports even more informative, transparent, and easier to understand for the Canadian public. Our goal is to provide additional facts, content, context, and explanation, so as to make the reports clear and more useful to all readers.

While we will do all that we can to provide as much information as possible to enhance transparency, we must do so in a fashion that will not harm Canadian business interests or negatively impact either competitiveness or the livelihoods of ordinary Canadians who are employed in this important commercial sector.

This issue is very important to me as the member of Parliament for London West. Many of my constituents work at General Dynamics Land Systems, located in the riding of London—Fanshawe. These hard-working Canadians and their families rely on jobs created by this regional employer. GDLS, the eighth-largest regional employer, hires over 2,400 people, with approximately 2,100 employees in the London and Edmonton facilities. It is our local and global leader in light armoured vehicle platform and subsection integration. It has over 35 years of experience in supporting and protecting our soldiers.

During the election campaign, I was asked by a number of constituents if the Liberal government would sacrifice the jobs at GDLS because of concerns with the deal made with Saudi Arabia. I said during the campaign, and have continued to say without wavering, that I would do all I can to continue to support the jobs at GDLS.

Canada has a strong history working with the defence industry. My father worked on the Avro Arrow in the 1950s as a draftsman working on the engine of this amazing aircraft. He was one of the 5,000 employees who lost their jobs on that infamous day when the Conservative government decided to turn its back on Avro Arrow. I will not let that happen again.

GDLS Canada relies on the Government of Canada to set the trade and export policies under which it conducts its business. Defence goods are among the most highly regulated export commodities in Canada. GDLS Canada exports in full compliance with the laws and regulations of the Government of Canada. Canadians expect an export control system that is rigorous, transparent, and predictable, and that is what we deliver.

We are delivering on our campaign commitment by joining the Arms Trade Treaty, thus promoting responsibility, transparency, and accountability in regulating the global trade of conventional weapons. This is the right thing to do. We are committed to the jobs at General Dynamics Land Systems, unlike members in the third party who are now turning their backs on the thousands of workers in the London region who count on these jobs.

We are confident that we can find the right balance between safeguarding the commercial interests of Canadian businesses and delivering on our commitment to further enhance the rigour and transparency of the export control process, and accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. This treaty is the result of growing international concern about the direct and indirect consequences of the global arms trade on conflict, human rights, and development.

The ATT does not restrict the type and quantity of arms that a country can export, but requires that these be exported in a responsible manner. It is aimed at ensuring that individual states have an effective export control system in place to regulate the legitimate arms trade while, at the same time, using transparency measures to combat the illicit trade.

The ATT sets out robust global rules to stop the flow of weapons, munitions, and related items to countries when it is known that they would be used for truly horrific purposes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It requires all its state parties to assess the export of conventional weapons to a high standard to ensure that they are not used to commit human rights abuses, violate international humanitarian law, or contribute to international terrorism or organized crime.

For the first time, it specifically requires that states also assess their exports against the risk that they would be used to commit serious acts of gender-based violence or violence against women and children, seeking to protect those who are so often victims in the use of conventional weapons.

It is important to note that the ATT does not require its member states to automatically halt all exports to countries with challenging records on human rights or other areas of concern. Rather, it must assess the risk of an individual export being used for nefarious purposes and consider options to mitigate this risk. In other words, states must apply due diligence in considering exports and consider both the risks and benefits of the export of conventional arms.

The ATT also requires transparency and efforts to prevent diversion of weapons. This is critical in the fight to prevent the illicit transfer of conventional weapons. These weapons, when traded illegally, too often fall into the hands of those who do not respect human rights or who commit acts of terrorism.

It is now essential that we rejoin our international partners and allies in their collective effort through the Arms Trade Treaty. Indeed, Canada is the only NATO ally and only G7 partner not to have signed or ratified the treaty. This is in keeping with neither our Canadian values nor our broader policy objectives of reducing conflict and instability, promoting human rights, and countering terrorism.

Acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty would complement Canada's existing engagement on the responsible trade of conventional arms. It would allow Canada to be more effective and to work multilaterally in its quest for a more transparent and accountable arms trade not only here in Canada but throughout the world.