House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was firearms.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important situation. Half of our military exports go to the United States. This is a huge part of our exports. The United States is obviously a big trading partner. This would not endanger that at all. It would just be the tracking mechanisms, so that Canada could live up to its obligations under the treaty.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Peace, on which we are asked to commit to peace above all differences and to contribute to building a culture of peace here in our community, our country, and around the world.
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 on August 6, which is the anniversary of the tragic and terrible bombing of Hiroshima, where members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom were talking about the United Nations treaty to ban nuclear weapons. At this ceremony last year they shared my hope that the Prime Minister was going to walk his talk and sign the treaty, given his campaign commitments about peace, security, and restoring Canada's good reputation on the world stage.
However, this year peace activists—and I think particularly of my mentor, Dyane Brown—were condemning the Prime Minister because he had directed Canada to vote against negotiations to end the nuclear weapons trade. Therefore, Canada voted against those negotiations and is not a signatory to that treaty. It was shameful. The United Nations Secretary-General called for nuclear negotiations, and 68 countries voted in favour. This was a bit more than a year ago, and Canada was on the outside of that international consensus.
The vote was called “the most significant contribution to nuclear disarmament in two decades” by one of the United Nations member countries. It is a shameful position for our country to be in. With the Liberal government's vote, Canada has effectively removed itself from nuclear disarmament democracy and diplomacy. We do not understand how Canada can be back, in the government's words, “on the international stage” when the Prime Minister is turning his back on the most important international negotiations in years. The threat of nuclear war is so present on the international stage right now that it is even more important that the international community work together at this time.
New Democratic members of Parliament and the representative for the Green Party stood on the steps of Parliament yesterday with activists in the area. We ourselves signed that treaty in a sign of solidarity, even though our Prime Minister and the Government of Canada will not.
There is much more United Nations consensus in which our country can join. A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact of armed conflict on women, children, refugees, internally displaced persons, persons with disabilities, and older persons. As the New Democrat spokesperson on the status of women, I am going to bring a gender lens in particular to this debate.
The UN and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer 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.
Is it not time that we look more closely at the regimes to which Canada exports weapons? In all countries everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the very fabric of a community in the way that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and government. About 603,000,000 women live in countries where domestic violence is not considered a crime. Are we exporting weapons there?
In many countries there is repression, silencing of abuse, and mistreatment and imprisonment of women, human rights defenders, and activists. Are we exporting weapons there? In some countries, women are considered perpetual legal minors, permanently under the guardianship of a male relative. 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 those human rights abuses in countries abroad.
At last year's New Democrat convention, Stephen Lewis powerfully said:
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 then called out the Prime Minister, who “unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist” but is selling weapons to a regime "steeped in misogyny.”
Is it not time that we looked more closely at the regimes to which we export weapons? Many Canadians would be shocked to know that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years.
While Canada used to export primarily to NATO countries, under the Conservative government these shifted to regimes with particularly 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.
There are increasing allegations that Canadian weapons are being used to commit human rights violations in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan.
Last year, the NDP wanted to create a committee in this House that would have provided parliamentary oversight of arms exports. We would have had multi-party co-operation investigating current and future arms exports. However, the Liberal government voted against it.
All last year we called for Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. Finally, with this legislation, Canada is, but Bill C-47 does not strengthen export controls, and we have no idea whether future arms deals with human rights-abusing countries would be prohibited. The Arms Trade Treaty was meant to prevent these kinds of deals, but the government's legislation seems to go against the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty.
Nor does it consider violence against women and children. The Arms Trade Treaty requires the exporting country to take into account the risk of arms or munitions “being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children.” The Arms Trade Treaty is the first international convention to recognize and address the link between conventional arms transfers and gender-based violence. That is a good thing. Such criteria should be incorporated into Canada's export controls, but this bill fails to address that need.
We have a government that says it is deeply committed to equal rights for women, and committed to transparency, do let us move forward. Let us do the right thing collectively. Let us amend this bill to make it fair, transparent, full of human rights for women, and consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty. Let us make Canada proud again on the world stage.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. She made reference Saudi Arabia. We know that the NDP are hard to pin down in terms of what its actual position is.
Who do we believe? Do we believe some of the NDP members of Parliament who are sitting in this chamber right now? Do we believe someone like the leader of the New Democratic Party, who during the election campaign made a commitment to anyone who was in earshot at a factory in London when he was talking about how the NDP would honour the agreement with Saudi Arabia.
My question for the member across the way is this: was the leader of the New Democratic Party wrong to have made that particular commitment to the workers and others, when he made the statement that the NDP would honour the agreement with Saudi Arabia? Was the leader of the New Democratic Party wrong at that time? Are some of the members maybe a little misplaced in their thinking on the issue of that contract with Saudi Arabia?
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I think we have probably answered that question in this House more times than I can count.
The signing of the contract at the time and the uses of the armoured vehicles were one question. The contract was established under the terms of the old Conservative government. By the time the Liberal government, in its new power, was asked to sign, in its own name, the export agreement to honour those vehicles being moved, it was very clear that there were guns mounted to the front of those armoured vehicles. At that point, the product being exported was a very different product.
This government was fully aware of that. It is this government's signature that is on this export agreement. This is the one that is being called to account by human rights activists in this country and around the world.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the Arms Trade Treaty is one that Canada should have stepped up to under the previous government. Unfortunately, we have seen that the way the legislation has been drafted leaves large loopholes that need fixing.
In answer to the question from the parliamentary secretary, it is hard to square the comments of her outgoing leader with an objection to selling tanks to Saudi Arabia, but we move forward and learn from those experiences.
Would the hon. member agree with the statement that came through from Amnesty International, Project Ploughshares, and Oxfam Canada that the loopholes allowing weapons to be sold through the U.S. with no record-keeping create a loophole so large we can drive a tank through it?
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, after two years of promises, we finally have a government that is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. That is a good thing. I am not going to vote against that. I very much want to move it to committee. As the member cites, we are absolutely in solidarity with the changes that our activist friends Project Ploughshares want to see, so I will be voting to send this to committee.
In addition to the loophole around violence against women I cited in my speech, one of the loopholes we note is that the Arms Trade Treaty asks us to look at what our exports would be to the United States. Right now, this version of the bill does not allow for any licensing or scrutiny of whether these arms would be used in a way that reveals or exacerbates human rights problems. That is one of the three big loopholes we will be trying to close at committee. We hope that the government will listen to reason this time around.
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very proud today to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-47, which would make the legislative changes necessary so Canada could finally accede to the international Arms Trade Treaty. This issue has concerned me for many years.
Six years ago, I led a training program for women running for parliament in the Democratic Republic of Congo. So many of the women, when speaking of their motivation to run for office, spoke of having been sexually violated at gunpoint and wanting to build a country where their sons and daughters did not have to live in fear of violence. When I asked the women in that room how many of them had been raped, over 80% of them put up their hand. I will never forget what one of the women said to me. She said, “Congo doesn't manufacture weapons. Every gun that was used against us was brought here by somebody. If you can stop the guns, you can stop the rape.”
Two years later, the international community came together in 2013 to sign the Arms Trade Treaty, which regulates the illicit trade in small arms and conventional weapons, and it was agreed upon. It came into force in 2014.
The Arms Trade Treaty includes specific provisions on the use of conventional weapons to commit serious acts of violence against women and girls, including rape. I assumed that Canada would be one of the first countries to lead the world in signing this incredibly important treaty, but I was wrong. Now, 130 countries have signed the Arms Trade Treaty and I am very proud that once this legislation passes, Canada will finally be among them.
According to Oxfam, 2,000 people a day are killed by small arms around the world. In fact, the amount of money the continent of Africa lost as a result of armed conflict between 1990 and 2006 was almost the exact same as the amount of official development assistance it received. Not only does regulating the illicit trade in weapons stop arms from getting into the hands of dictators, of criminals, of terrorists, of mercenaries, and of non-state militia groups that commit horrific human rights abuses, but it will also ensure that the poorest and most fragile states will be able to commit that money to the sustainable development goals.
Signing the Arms Trade Treaty is not just good for people in other countries, it also will benefit Canada significantly.
The first benefit that I would like to highlight are the international relations benefits to Canada of acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty. It will put us back in line with our allies. At this point, Canada is the only NATO or G7 country not to have signed or ratified the treaty. Canada has long been at the forefront of promoting export controls as a way of reducing the types of risks that are addressed in the Arms Trade Treaty. Indeed, we are founding members of the four export control regimes, multilateral initiatives created in response to concern about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; missiles and related dual use goods and technologies; or, in the case of the Wassenaar arrangement, in order to regulate the export of conventional weapons. Remaining outside the ATT is not in Canada's international interest.
We have long recognized that Canada benefits from a strong, rules-based international system. In that regard, the Arms Trade Treaty sets clear rules for international trade in conventional arms, rules that take into account important issues for Canada, such as preventing violations and abuses of human rights or international humanitarian law. It is in Canada's interest that as many states as possible join and implement the ATT, to ensure that all states adopt the type of strong export controls that we already have in place.
Accession to the ATT will allow Canada to be more effective and to work multilaterally in its quest for a more transparent and accountable arms trade.
Accession to the Arms Trade Treaty also offers Canada important national and international security benefits. Canada's security and that of its allies is put at risk when terrorists have easy access to weapons. The ATT requires that all state parties assess the risk that exports could contribute to terrorism and not export these goods if that risk is overriding.
The ATT requires the same considerations for transnational crime, which benefits from selling weapons to the highest bidder regardless of how they intend to use such weapons. The ATT also requires that its state parties prevent diversion of their exports and of their own stockpiles of weapons.
More broadly, the illicit proliferation of conventional weapons promotes and sustains conflict, conflict that leads to regional and even global instability; conflict that forces people from their homes; conflict that generates poverty and inequality and prevents sustainable development.
Canada benefits from a stable, prosperous world. The conflict created when weapons flow easily into fragile states creates instability for us and for all our international partners. Accession to the ATT will allow Canada to work with the international community to stem such weapon flows.
We recently contributed one million dollars to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation with the goal of assisting states that want to accede to the ATT or improve their implementation of the treaty. Many states have not implemented the strong set of checks and balances that are necessary.
Canadian and international security can only benefit from more states that carefully consider the potential impacts and diversion risks of conventional arms exports before authorizing such sales.
There is considerable domestic benefit to Canadian accession and implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty. Canadian accession to the ATT will promote responsible and transparent arms trade globally. As I have already noted, Canada has a strong and rigorous export control system, but that does not mean it cannot be further improved.
The bill before the House will allow Canada to fully implement the ATT. By doing so, we will be strengthening our current system of export control. Although the government wishes to see Canada accede to the treaty as soon as possible, we will accede as a responsible member, by being able to comply with all the obligations of the treaty.
The bill before the House is intended to ensure that Canada explicitly complies with the obligation to assess exports of conventional arms according to the criteria set out in the Arms Trade Treaty. These include the need to assess the effect on international peace and security, the risk of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the risk of facilitating terrorism or transnational organized crime, and the risk of gender-based violence or violence against women and children. Our government intends to ensure that these considerations will be enshrined as required obligations for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, and that the criteria set out in the ATT will be explicitly listed as factors that must be considered in each export licence assessment.
The bill before us would also ensure that Canada can comply with ATT obligations on brokering. It proposes to impose the same standards we expect from Canadian individuals and companies that export conventional weapons to those who seek, legitimately, to broker such weapons. Brokering controls will strengthen Canada's export control system by tracking the movement of controlled items outside of Canada and supporting global co-operation in the international trade of conventional arms.
Our government proposes to apply these provisions not only to conventional arms, as the ATT requires, but also to items of strategic importance. We propose to ensure that brokering operations are assessed according to the same factors used to obtain export licences.
This will ensure that arms transfers organized by Canada comply with Canadian legislation and policies.
I began by talking about the courageous women I met in the Congo and around the world. They are fighting for a world where their daughters and sons can live free from fear and violence. Through Bill C-47, I can stand in this place and let the women I met in the Congo, Liberia, Kosovo, Bosnia, and in so many other places know that our country will do its part.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, I honour the member's work with the United Nations and around the world. She has a particular voice that is brought to this issue. I thank her for the storytelling she included in her speech.
The question I have is about the commitment of Bill C-47 to examining the human rights violations of women and children in particular. I am very interested in her perspective on this, because I know this is an important part of her background.
It is my understanding that the Arms Trade Treaty requires the exporting country to take into account the risk of arms or munitions being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children. Although this is in the Arms Trade Treaty, it is not translated into Bill C-47.
Could the member speak to that? If she agrees that it is a missing piece, will she argue for amendments in committee to close that loophole?
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work the member also does for women and girls in Canada and around the world.
Specifically on this question, I think where the confusion might lie is that this is a factor that will be done through regulations. I can reassure my colleague that the regulations will include every single one of the article 7 obligations. That means the legislation will include the very provisions in the Arms Trade Treaty which talk about protection of women and girls from violence.
An important thing to note is that by doing this through regulation, we are making it more flexible. In fact, this is the very kind of thing that would allow us, in the future, to expand and include other forms of gender-based violence in these regulations rather than have to go through a legislative framework.
If anything, this actually empowers, even more, the ability for Canada not only to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and to all the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty, but also to be a leader in the world and show an example in the world.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean proudly represents a number of people who work with the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
She might find it strange that article 5 of this treaty actually prevents DND from potentially doing government-to-government transfers of assistance of a military nature, like we are doing with the peshmerga and our fight against ISIS. Canada's safe and effective regulatory regime for export of military equipment and such has never required such a drastic step as is in article 5 of this treaty.
Since the member also proudly represents a number of civil servants, I wonder if she would comment on why our current system is broken, the one we have had since the 1940s that leads the world, the one that has the Trade Controls Bureau, and the fact that the Export and Import Permits Act permits the government to have an area of control list banning countries entirely from getting anything from Canada?
A number of measures have effectively been regulated on a Canadian basis since the Second World War. We did not need the United Nations to tell us how to do this. In fact, our regime is superior to a number of the elements in here.
As an Ottawa and area member, could the member tell us what parts of the current regime, which Canada has been using successfully, have been failing are in need of Bill C-47?
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I am proud that I represent the riding that will have the large DND campus. I am also proud that a number of public servants and a number of employees of the Department of National Defence are my constituents. That is exactly why this is extremely important. This is going to make Canada once again a leader in the world.
With regard to article 5, I would remind my hon. colleague that our current arms controls meet or exceed all 28 articles in the Arms Trade Treaty, except for articles 10 and 7, and those are to do with the brokering controls and formalizing the accountability process and the transparency of the criteria for export permits. All of our controls already exist with regard to article 5.
In the same breath the hon. member talked about the fact that the current system is working. I would venture first of all to say that a lot of the things in the current system, like the Wassenaar Arrangement, are not all-encompassing of the 130 countries but also are not legally binding. The Arms Trade Treaty is legally binding, and that is extremely important. It would allow Canada not just to be able to reinforce what we are doing, but also including the $1 million that we have put to the international community will help other countries to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and to take that leadership in the world that our public servants and members of DND and our armed forces are proud of.
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke eloquently about her international experience and her conversations with women and the use of arms against women in other countries.
I am wondering if they had heard that our country had not signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty and what she thinks it would mean for our international relations to find out that we are now finally going to sign on to this treaty.
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
It is close to my heart, Madam Speaker. When I was working with women in countries around the world, they would ask me what is happening to Canada and where Canada is. In many cases, they told me not only was Canada absent but Canada was actually blocking progress on some of the things they needed in order to promote and empower women around the world and empower the world's poorest. I heard this over and over again.
When I was working with the UN in New York, I heard many times from counterparts that Canada was being asked not to show up for international negotiations because we were seen as obstructionists. That was very embarrassing to me. I sat in a room with women who told me they were running for parliament in their countries, trying to do their part. They asked me why I was not running for office so I could do my part and change things in Canada. That was primarily what really motivated me to run for this place, and I am so proud today. This is one of my proudest days, because I am able to rise in this place and tell those women that Canada is going to accede to the Arm's Trade Treaty.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my friend for bringing up the reality of what happens to women in conflict zones around the world and the importance of stopping the flow of weapons. A lot of Canadians would be shocked by the information she has brought forward.
I am certainly aware of the fact that, over the last number of years, Canada has become much more part of the global arms trade than we have ever been in the past. We need to stem the flow of armaments to many countries around the world. We need to step up and sign the nuclear disarmament treaty. There are many things that Canada needs to do to reclaim its place in the world at the time when Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize, one of the things for which Canadians feel very proud.
Would my hon. colleague agree that, when the bill gets to committee, we need to fix the loophole that allows armaments to be sent into the United States with no records being kept? The United States is a non-party state. They could go to many countries around the world that would not meet Canadian standards.
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Madam Speaker, I am proud that, as of today, I am on the foreign affairs committee. Members on this committee work well together in being able to find solutions to problems as a country, and not by looking at problems through a partisan lens. I am looking forward to seeing this bill before committee, hearing from witnesses, and looking at what could be improved.
Many of the things within the Arms Trade Treaty are already being done by Canada. We need to make sure there is more transparency. It requires reporting to the House. It requires that we have control over brokering. There are a lot of things that we need to do in order to be able to accede to the treaty. I am pleased that I will have the opportunity to participate in that discussion in committee.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead.
I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-47, a bill that would create the legislative provisions to permit Canada to sign on to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. I want to begin by expressing that I have always been supportive of legislative measures and other efforts to establish international standards for arms transfers that seek to prevent illicit transfers of weapons around the world. I have no opposition to that aspect of the treaty; it is important that we halt the flow of arms to dangerous regimes and terrorist cells.
However, I will focus my comments today on an area of concern that I feel, under the government, is not being duly considered as a side effect of signing on to that Arms Trade Treaty. That is how this legislation, in signing the Arms Trade Treaty, would impact law-abiding gun owners such as hunters, firearms, and sports shooters like me.
I believe that any treaty such as this must contain explicit exemptions for civilian firearms or, at the very least, eliminate vague language and language that could suggest that firearms owned by civilians for recreational use could become subject to measures in the treaty. The treaty should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use.
As it is currently written, the treaty does not meet these conditions, and concerns from Canadian firearms owners have fallen on deaf ears from the government. A good example of that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying the concerns of hunters and sports shooters are “bogus”. He is telling me that my concerns are bogus and obviously that points out how out of touch he is. I have to shake my head about a comment like that. Obviously he is not representing all the people in his riding, because every riding in this country has people who like to sport shoot.
I support some of the things that the UN does, but I also have some grave concerns. The international news in the last couple of days reports comments from British Prime Minister May, who basically is telling the UN to reform, clean up its act, or funds will be cut to it. There are other things that raise concerns for me and a lot of other Canadians.
While in government, the Conservative Party took time to analyze this treaty and its impacts on the firearms community in Canada. The government is seemingly looking at this issue as a one and done type of deal. Sign on, pass the legislation the UN deems must be passed, and call it a day. It is not quite that simple, and concerns have been raised about the implications of this treaty, as I alluded.
I was honoured to serve alongside the Hon. John Baird, former minister of foreign affairs, and it was during his tenure that this treaty was at the forefront of public debate. Minister Baird took his time in making a decision, as he knew how complicated this matter was. He noted that the vagueness of the language in the treaty had the potential to create situations wherein backdoor firearms registries could be created. He asked that civilian firearms be removed from the scope of the treaty and that it be made explicit. When this request was not met, the decision was made to not move forward with signing on to the treaty. That is what should be happening today.
I understand that, when the Liberals made this promise, they were in opposition and it made for a nice 2015 campaign promise. I know they did not understand the complexities that come with the implementation of these treaties, and they still do not. However, I am asking the government now to consider all the impacts and all the concerns that have been presented. They are not bogus. The government is typically hellbent on consulting. For example, at this very moment, there are currently 87 open consultations, and this is great, if it were really true. It is great that the government will hear concerns on a number of issues.
My question is this. Why will the government not hear from firearms owners? Why will it not at least give firearms owners an opportunity to voice their concerns with this treaty?
It is ironic that one of the Liberals' open consultations right now is on their proposed tax reforms for small businesses, farmers, and physicians. They opened this consultation process in the middle of summer when many Canadians were on vacation and when all farmers were busy working the fields. It is actions like this that make me wonder if the government really wants to hear input or whether it is simply consulting for the sake of saying it consulted.
If the Liberals did open a consultation process on the Arms Trade Treaty, they would hear that firearms owners have a number of very specific concerns. Of particular concern is article 5 of the treaty, which contains several sections, but particularly sections 2 and 4 are quite concerning. Section 2 states:
2. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.
Section 4 follows up on section 2 by stating that:
4. Each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties. States Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.
Those in the firearms community, including me, are concerned that the vague phrasing of these sections has the potential to create a national and/or international registry, which could include civilian firearms and would then be made public. It is a real fear that this could come out of the bill. When expressed, these concerns have fallen on deaf ears with no response from the government. Again, it really does not want to consult or hear.
I can speak first-hand to the level of concern that Canadians have with Bill C-47. I recently sponsored an e-petition. In fact, I have it beside me on my desk, and I will table it in the House tomorrow. The petition was initiated in Prince George, British Columbia. This petition calls on the government to not sign onto the UN Arms Trade Treaty and to not pass Bill C-47 into law as is. If this did not happen, the petitioners call on the government to amend Bill C-47 to not include any of the sections and subsections that would require importers, stores, and individuals to keep any records of any imported or exported firearms, or any article that falls into the brokering control list. Furthermore, the petitioners call on the government to amend the bill to eliminate the penalty for not keeping adequate records, which the legislation states carries a fine not exceeding $250,000, or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or both.
This petition has 4,584 signatures on it from ridings right across the country, from ridings of some of my colleagues sitting beside me, and more than likely from ridings of colleagues across the way. They include signatories from every province and territory across the country. That is how widespread this is. The support is also very evenly distributed across the country and does not seem to have any sort of regional bias.
It is a shame that the government must learn about this from me. It would know this information itself if it had done the right thing in the first place and given firearms owners an actual opportunity, a real consultation, to voice their concerns. Unfortunately, this is standard practice. The Liberals give lip service and do not really carry out the consultation in a real, truthful manner. This seems to be the standard practice for the government when it comes to relating to firearms owners in Canada, no matter what the issue.
Given that the government refuses to listen to firearms owners and concerned stakeholders in the firearms community, I would like to take a few moments to read some of the comments from these groups. However, as I must conclude, I will not get a chance to read some of these comments from the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the president of the National Firearms Association, and others.
With that, I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues across the way. Lastly, I would urge the government again to do the right thing and do the consultations.
Matt DeCourcey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Madam Speaker, my colleague indicated toward the beginning of his speech, and I do not want to directly quote him and misquote him as he misquoted me, that he seemed to agree with the intent of the bill, which would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and ensure that international trade in conventional arms would not contribute to international conflict and instability that we know negatively impact women and children more than a lot of other vulnerable groups. The treaty is about import, export, and international brokering environments. My colleague seemed to agree with the notion that it was a good idea and that he could support it.
Let me disabuse him of his misunderstanding of what this bill is not about. It is not about domestic gun controls. Nothing in Bill C-47 affects domestic controls on the lawful and legitimate use of firearms. Second, it would not create a registry of conventional arms. Record keeping for the import and export of arms in Canada has existed since the 1940s. It existed under the Conservative government. Bill C-47 would leave in place the same record keeping of conventional arms that was used under the former Conservative government.
If he agrees with what the bill would do and now has an understanding of what the bill would not do, will he now agree to support it?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Madam Speaker, members like my colleague across the way want to cherry-pick my comments. If he had listened to everything I said, and it is obvious that he did not, what I said about dealing arms from bad regimes country to country was one thing. I agree with that, but I talked about firearms that came here affecting civilian firearms owners like myself and thousands of others across the country. He just does not want to buy into that.
Another fact that proves he is wrong is that the bill states that the information has to be retained for six years.
Again, one cannot pick and choose what is in the legislation. It should be amended so it is better. I will look at it, and maybe I will agree, maybe I will not, but the government should at least change the bad parts that law-abiding firearms owners, hunters, shooters, and farmers keep pointing out. The government should make the bill better now that it has the opportunity to do it.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, knowing the good common sense of my colleague, I want to ask him if he does not think it despicable that his party voted against a motion that seemed to make a lot of sense and that—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order. Interpretation does not seem to be working.
It seems to be working now. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Madam Speaker, knowing the good common sense of my colleague, I want to ask him why his party did not support our bill that would have given some parliamentary oversight of who we were sending arms to. Knowing the member has good common sense, why would his party not support such an idea?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
First, Madam Speaker, I am not sure what legislation my hon. friend is referring to. My party will support anything that is practical and will actually do something as far as the safety of citizens, and that kind of thing. Without having a chance to peruse the bill he talked about, I have to assume that it was not worth the paper it was written on or we would have supported it.
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. The bill would officially bring Canada into line with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, also known as the ATT.
In a news release issued on April 13, after the bill was tabled, the government stated, “The ATT is about protecting people from arms”.
We have been hearing all day today from our friends across the way about people being harmed. It makes me wonder who the government wants to protect.
Law-abiding firearms owners and merchants are not a threat. In my experience as an RCMP officer, most weapons-related crimes in Canada are committed with firearms that are obtained illegally or usually stolen.
The history of firearms in Canada goes back as far as the country itself. Let us be fair. The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association was founded in 1868, and I do not think there is a province in Canada today that does not have a branch of that association. We have hunters who rely on firearms to provide food for their families as their forefathers did, as the earliest settlers in Canada did. We have farmers who rely on firearms to protect their livestock, as the early settlers did. We have sport shooters who rely on firearms to compete in competitions in the same way as a competitive tennis player relies on his or her tennis racket. We have firearms collectors who seek guns in the same way stamp collectors search for stamps.
The firearms community is a large and diverse group in Canada. These are law-abiding and responsible Canadians, yet the current government seems to think it needs to protect people from firearms. There is a lot of fearmongering today about all the deaths. Somebody before me just quoted that 80 women were raped because it was done at gunpoint and that two thousand people were dying each day because of guns. Let us truly look at where we are on this. Those members fail to realize that firearms have been part of many Canadians' livelihoods for decades.
As the previous speaker stated, we need to look at international gun control and we need to prevent the flow of illegal firearms. However, most important, we must listen to and hear from Canadians. One thing the Liberal government has failed to do is listen to Canadians.
When law-abiding firearms owners or Canadian companies purchase a weapon outside of Canada and wish to import it across the border, they must declare it to Canada Border Services Agency. A great deal of documentation is required and all this bill would do is add unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, red tape, and more cost.
It has been mentioned in the House many times today that Canada is probably one of the leading countries in the world with gun control. In fact, we have met 26 of the 28 standards in the ATT. We are probably much more regulated and have better gun control, quality control, export control, and import control than ATT will ever have.
Our previous Conservative government dealt with the UN Arms Trade Treaty when it came into force in December 2014. Its purpose, as we all have heard, is to regulate the international trade of arms so they are not used to support terrorism or international organized crime. I do not think there is anybody in this room who does not support that. I do not know about them, but I do not think farmer Joe in northern Saskatchewan is supporting international organized crime when he imports a rifle, whether he intends to use it for hunting, protecting his livestock, or sport shooting. We are going a bit overboard with the bill. That is why so many of us have stood on this side of the House and have spoken about our concerns. We are speaking for the average Canadian. They want to be heard, and that side does not want to hear them. We have to speak for them.
Our former Prime Minister Harper requested that civilian firearms be removed from this treaty in 2014, yet the UN ignored the request to respect the interests of Canadians and refused to remove civilians from the language of the treaty
What did our previous government do? We did not sign it. We stood up for Canadians. That is what the Liberal government is failing to do. We refused to sign the treaty at that time. The Liberal government is ready to sign a document that is not good for firearm owners. It does nothing to improve the safety of Canadians. This is my opinion. My colleagues across from me may disagree, but let me remind them of something.
The former foreign affairs minister, Stéphane Dion, even admitted this in his own press release issued in June 2016. To paraphrase, it stated that Canada already met the vast majority of its obligations. The treaty was designed to bring other countries up to the high standards that Canada already applied to its export control regime. Therefore, why are we going this way?
During the summer, I attended the Edson rod and gun club range. It is located in a remote part of my riding. The reason it is way out at the end of my riding is because it is one of the longest ranges in Canada. I went there because there was going to be a group called Got Your Six at the range that weekend. Its members were there last year, as was I. This is a group of current and retired military police, firemen, first responders, and civilians. It is a great organization. Members may not have heard of it. It is a charity shooting competition group that raises funds and creates awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Last year, it gathered for its first competitive shooting tournament. It was a popular event. It was amazing to watch the military and civilian marksmen hit a target a mile away time after time. More astounding to see was the camaraderie between the men and women, which is like a brotherhood, by shooting weapons in a competition. They were also gathered there to talk about and help others with post-traumatic stress disorder. That is only a small group of the thousands of Canadians who either sport shoot, hunt, or collect firearms.
This year the same shooting competition quadrupled in attendance. Men and women came from across Canada, some for the competitiveness, many for the camaraderie and fellowship they share as the current and former guardians of our country and the world. These people are not a threat, even though there were all types of weapons there. These people are just a small representation of the thousands who enjoy shooting at local ranges, hunting, or collecting firearms. This bill would not help them in any way. Rather, it would only complicates things for them.
Before we spend a fortune in tax dollars limiting more rights and freedoms, is there a pressing and urgent need for Canada to join the UN Arms Trade Treaty? No.
From my experience, this treaty places undue hardship on law-abiding gun owners and merchants. Canada already implements and complies with the vast majority of the treaty's obligations. We are a safe and law-abiding country, so why this unnecessary change? Why are we punishing responsible firearms owners with this legislation if Canada already meets the vast majority of its obligations?
I can agree with the overall goal of the treaty that aims to prevent illegal transfers of arms that fuel conflict, encourage terrorism, and support organized crime. However, I am concerned that the Liberals have not consulted lawful gun owners. It is not a big surprise, or maybe it is a big surprise considering the number of consultations they have held on almost every other issue, or so they claim. Because of this lack of consultation, they are moving forward with an arms treaty that does not respect the legitimate trade or use of hunting and sporting firearms in this country.
I was alarmed at a statement of the parliamentary secretary in his opening remarks regarding the bill. He talked about how we must lead by example, which our country has done. His other remarks with respect to even more robust legislation to come scare me.
Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec
Liberal
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand, from my colleague's speech, where he stands in terms of voting on this bill. He spent about 15 seconds saying that he supports the goal of Bill C-47. He then spent 9.5 minutes talking about something that is not an issue, but something we care deeply about and fully support, which is the lawful use of firearms by hunters, fishermen, and sports shooters.
That is not at issue in this bill. I am interested in and respect his strong feelings on the subject, but what I am interested in knowing is, will he vote for or against this bill, knowing that we would be the last G7 country to join our NATO partners and allies in ratifying this treaty?
If he does not vote for it, how will he explain that to Canadians? I am interested in hearing his answer.
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Madam Speaker, I am quite willing to give the member my answer, which is no. It is not because I do not believe that we should participate, it is because the Liberal government did not consult with lawful gun owners. It is ramming it through, and shoving it down the throats of Canadians without proper consultation. That I cannot stand for. I will stand up for the lawful gun owners in my riding and across Canada who are law-abiding citizens.