Debates of Sept. 28th, 2017

Export and Import Permits Act

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Green Party for hopefully bringing a sense of comfort to the many gun owners in my riding, where hunting is very much a part of the way of life for many people and many of my constituents.

The NDP will support Bill C-47 at second reading, and we hope to see amendments at committee. Since the member does not get a chance to participate actively in those committees, I would ask her if there are amendments she would like to see brought forward in addition to the one concerning tracking arms through the United States.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, I am forced by a decision of eight individual committees to present amendments at clause-by-clause. I will be listening to all the evidence before the committee. I am grateful to the hon. member. I know he will be helpful when it gets to committee.

There are a number of other places we might want to tighten up the treaty. We may have amendments that are similarly worded. However, the main one, and I hope the Liberal benches will be open to helping us at committee, is to find a way to address the loophole in dealing with the transfer of arms. We do not need to single out the United States. We need to just say that where we are transferring weapons or arms of any kind, when we are dealing with a non-state party, we should also keep records.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill because it is extremely important to me.

The thing to keep in mind about arms treaties is that trading in arms is not the same as trading in potatoes. Arms can result in death and the destruction of the environment, depending on which type is used.

The use of this equipment carries consequences that are too great, which is why much more monitoring and supervision is required. We have to ask questions to determine what this equipment will be used for later, for example. That is one of the underlying questions in the Arms Trade Treaty that we are discussing here today. The urge to regulate the arms trade reflects a greater realization that we cannot simply sell weapons without asking how they will be used later on. That would make no sense.

Take our troops, for example. I think it is essential that we not send them somewhere to fight for the values of freedom, the values of the United Nations, and Canadian values, against people who are using Canadian arms that were sold to them directly, or transferred to them some other way, but ended up in the wrong hands.

Out of respect for our soldiers and because of what we, as a country, ask of them, we must have a solid arms trade policy that takes into account that arms will change hands more than once. If we think we know where arms will end up one day, then maybe we should refrain from selling them. It is not acceptable to turn a blind eye in order to make money in the arms trade. We really need to know where they are going and how they will be used.

This is a bill aimed at supporting the implementation of a treaty on the arms trade, but unfortunately, parts of it remain vague. For that reason, our party intends to support this bill and, by extension, the Arms Trade Treaty, but with the caveat that unless certain parts of the bill are clarified, it will not achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that arms are sold only to people capable of wielding them responsibly. It is crucial to know whether those that have weapons are capable of using them in a judicious and well-thought-out manner, or whether they will be irresponsible and have no scruples about violating human rights by deploying them against civilians.

We need to be even more careful with our arms exports. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the bill, as it currently stands, will achieve that goal. The best example before us is our arms deal with Saudi Arabia. We have proof that the weapons we sold to the Saudis are being used against their own citizens as a tool of repression. As human beings and as a society, we cannot live with this blood on our hands. We cannot accept Saudi money if we know that the vehicles they buy from us will ultimately be used for unacceptable purposes, as is happening now. It is a matter of integrity. I could not feel comfortable explaining to my child that weapons are being sent overseas and used against civilians.

However, I also understand that selling arms is an economic activity, and I agree that we should engage in that sort of trade with countries that abide by the treaty, NATO countries in particular. I know that these countries will use those weapons properly and wisely, and that they will not use them to violate human rights.

When we send weapons to a country that violates human rights as brazenly as Saudi Arabia, I have to wonder about our integrity. On one hand, we participate in this arms trade and we take the money that comes from it, while on the other, we condemn human rights violations. Our attitude does nothing to help stop the cycle of violence in Saudi Arabia. We are telling this country that what it is doing is not nice, but we are still agreeing to sell it weapons. It does not make any sense.

That is why we need to strengthen the provisions of the bill that deal with exports. Right now, they are too vague. The bill is not sound and does not settle the issue once and for all. There is also the matter of signing treaties and passing bills to ratify treaties. Treaties set out specific commitments and when a country signs a treaty, it is agreeing to take specific action. The signing of such documents should not be seen as an opportunity for a selfie. It is serious business. If the government passes bills without any real intention of implementing the very principle on which the treaty is based, we are not really making any progress.

That is why I sincerely hope that we will take the time to seriously examine this bill in committee and that the government will accept amendments to strengthen the provisions regarding the export of firearms to countries that violate human rights. I think that is essential.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that the Arms Trade Treaty does not allow any exemptions. The United States is currently exempt from the provisions on arms trade. That presents a problem as well. We will have to decide what to do with the United States. Since the treaty does not provide for exemptions, we will have to find another solution. We cannot continue to conduct trade with the United States the way we do now if we truly want to respect the spirit of the treaty. That is another important issue.

When we talk about arms exchanging hands, we must keep in mind that some of the weapons sold to the United States are later transferred to another country. For example, some countries might help groups that find it difficult to arm themselves to ensure stability. On certain occasions we armed groups that we believed were capable of regaining control of their country and their region. Unfortunately, one of those groups turned against us years later.

When we decide to arm foreign groups, we have to ask ourselves if we are being smart about it and if we can be sure they will use the arms they receive to restore stability. We have to figure out whether there is any chance it could backfire and put us in the position of having to send Canadian troops to fight those groups a decade later.

We can all agree that we have to be smart and sensible about the arms trade, and that we must not ignore human rights issues. If we do, we kind of have blood on our hands.

As lawmakers, I hope the bill we ultimately pass will address this issue very clearly, not vaguely like the bill before us. I hope the committee will be smart and sensible about its work on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite and she comes across as being against armaments being exported from Canada. I do not want to misquote her in any way, but rather just remind her of the last provincial election, when the leader of her party campaigned next to the gates of a factory that was producing armaments that were being exported to Saudi Arabia. Many of the concerns she dealt with in her speech are related to Saudi Arabia, and yet the leader of the New Democratic Party, during the election, in front of those workers and our nation, said that he and the NDP would conform and abide by agreements that were signed.

I understood what the leader of the New Democratic Party said then, but then I listened to what the member across the way said today, and I would ask if she believes, as I do, that there are inconsistencies between what she is saying and what the leader of her party said and how she would address that.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my whole speech, not just the parts he wanted to hear, he would have heard me say very clearly that I am not against selling arms to NATO countries. I believe they are capable of using arms intelligently. However, I have my doubts about doing business with countries such as Saudi Arabia.

I encourage the member to listen to speeches in their entirety so he can ask much better questions.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the NDP tried to create a new standing committee in the House to oversee arms exports, so that arms would not go to countries that have massive human rights violations. The proposal for this committee was put forward and, of course, the Liberals and Conservatives voted against such an oversight committee, which would be critical because there is no parliamentary oversight of Canadian arms exports, and this is despite the fact that Canada is now the second largest arms dealer in the Middle East.

I would ask my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue if she could speak about the importance of the oversight of arms exports.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, oversight is indeed extremely important, especially with regard to procurement. It is imperative that we ask questions about where the arms that leave Canada are going. It is a matter of accountability.

When I was the critic for military procurement, that was one of the questions I would routinely ask companies. I would ask who they did business with and whether they tried to sell their products in a responsible way. That is one of the key issues in the arms trade. We cannot keep closing our eyes and giving companies money to buy us weapons when those same companies export arms to countries we might have to fight. It makes absolutely no sense for us to buy fighter planes to attack armoured vehicles that were made in Canada to begin with. We would not have to fight those vehicles if we had not sold them in the first place. We need to use common sense. When it comes to dealing in arms and military equipment, we need to take our heads out of the sand and start asking questions.

I believe it is precisely the role of parliamentarians to ask these questions and think about how the arms trade is conducted. However, the Liberals decided that creating a committee to oversee arms exports was not all that important. I am very disappointed by their attitude, because the whole reason Parliament exists is to consider all these issues so Canadians can see that their MPs and senators are doing their job and making sure the arms trade is conducted responsibly. Unfortunately, when the NDP's motion was voted down, it meant Parliament and its members were prevented from taking action.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak on Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. In 2016, the Liberals announced that they would agree to sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This bill, if adopted, would implement the ATT.

Conservatives have always supported efforts to establish international standards for the trade of arms, which would help prevent illicit transfers to tyrannical regimes, terrorists, or criminal organizations bent on harming innocent people throughout the world and fuelling conflicts with their neighbours. I am stating for the record, which I am sure will not surprise many of my hon. colleagues in the House, that I oppose this bill. There are several reasons I oppose it, and for the benefit of Canadians watching on CPAC or in the House, I will explain why.

First, Canada already has an accountable and robust internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment, controls that meet or exceed those laid out in the ATT. The Trade Controls Bureau, which regulates the Export and Import Permits Act, has provided ministers, since the beginning of the cold war, with the ability to prevent the export of heavily restricted items of a military nature to countries that, for a variety of reasons, are perceived to be a threat internally or externally or are under sanctions by the United Nations. We take this seriously. We restrict dangerous items, which include military, strategic dual-use goods, nuclear energy materials and technology, missile, chemical, or biological goods, and cryptological equipment.

Second, we have a comprehensive and rigorous system in place to track and record more items, not fewer, than will be required under the ATT. What is more, Canadians are doing the tracking, not foreign governments. Canadian agencies, fully accountable to Parliament, like the Canada Border Services Agency, which tracks items, and Statistics Canada, which collects information on all items exported from Canada, classify these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization.

Third, Canada has at its disposal the area control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on this list and receive a blanket trade ban. North Korea is there right now. In the past, the list has included other countries like Belarus and Myanmar.

Fourth, countries that represent most of the sales of military equipment, like Russia and the United States, have either not signed or likely will not ratify the ATT. How effective is this? How does the government currently think that the ATT would be very effective when key participants in the trade of these items are not part of the treaty?

Fifth, any military trade treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for uses such as sports shooting, hunting, and collecting. The Conservatives have taken a strong and principled stance on this issue. We believe that any military trade treaty must recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their recreational use. This is why we did not sign the treaty when we were in government. We could not guarantee the protection of such traditional Canadian activities like hunting, for example.

We must remember that our primary duty as parliamentarians is to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies stood in the House and did a great job of outlining that issue for law-abiding gun owners, hunters, and recreational firearm enthusiasts. He was asked about this matter in particular and faced a few questions, and there were calls for the member and others to point to where in the legislation there would be a gun registry. I am not going to waste everybody's time here rereading that bill into the record as it has already been done by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

Before members ask me to point to sections that talk about keeping records, I should specify that it is “any records” that the minister stipulates, or the section that references that the minister can require “any person or organization that is required to keep records” to retain them for any period. I challenge members to take the bill back to their ridings and have a farmer, a hunter, a sports shooting enthusiast, or even a gun collector interpret it for them. I guarantee there will be a lot of questions on it.

I am sure they will give their thoughts on another gun registry, a registry—I might remind members—that targeted law-abiding firearms owners, cost the taxpayers of Canada some $2 billion, and did absolutely nothing to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals.

Now we have a government that promised not to introduce a gun registry, yet here it is, the very strong potential for a backdoor gun registry. This seems to be the modus operandi for the government: to introduce proposals that it knows will not pass muster, under some guise. As the old saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

Summer is the traditional time for vacations or in the case of farmers and entrepreneurs a very busy time, especially in my riding where the summer tourist season is short in some cases. In Ontario we had weather that was not exceptional for some tourist operators, marinas, hotels, and that sort of thing, so that is a crucial period and they are very busy. In the midst of summer, the Minister of Finance tried to slip past massive tax hikes on small business owners, professionals, and farmers, many of whom were in the fields when this was announced. They were busy.

What is it about law-abiding Canadians who are minding their own business that the government has such an issue with? Whether it is responsible gun owners enjoying a recreational pastime or hard-working small business entrepreneurs creating the jobs that grow the economy of this country, the government seems to feel obligated to meddle with legislation that is working fine.

Conservatives agree that Canada's tax system should be fair and equitable for all, and we agree that any military trade treaty we sign needs to protect the rights of Canadian firearms enthusiasts, so why has the government tried to stifle debate and “consult” in the middle of summer? Why is the consultation period set to end next Monday, just 10 days after the resumption of Parliament? Why will the government not prove to Canadians that there was not ill intent, and extend the tax hike consultation deadline?

I can tell everyone why, and it is the same reason that we are debating this problematic bill right now. The Liberal government feels it knows better. It knows better than Canadians and it knows better than the citizens of this country. The government wants to make the world less safe by adopting the ATT, which will do less to protect Canadians, our allies, and innocent lives around the globe. The government wants to remove oversight by trusted Canadian agencies, which are accountable to Parliament and by extension the people of Canada. It wants to do this to reintroduce a piece of legislation it promised not to introduce, a piece of costly legislation nobody wants. Why? It is because it seems to know better. I am here to say it does not, and I suspect it will not be long before Canadians tell it the same thing as well. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to address the comments made by my colleague across the way. I wonder if he would explain to his constituents that what Bill C-47 would do, in addition to providing a more codified way in which Canada can ensure that conventional arms are not getting into the hands of people who would do undue harm to women and children in conflict zones, is that it would leave in place the exact same record-keeping regime that was in place under the previous Conservative government. Would he explain that to his constituents, and would he also explain to them that Canada has a leadership role to play in helping address situations where women and young children are unduly and negatively affected in conflict zones? Canada can help regulate and resolve some of the terrible things that happen around the world.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I do appreciate the enthusiasm. I see him often in the halls, and we do have great conversations. It is good to see him all fired up over there. I appreciate that. No argument here, I would agree. We just want to ensure that those who are legally possessing firearms in this country do not have a back-door gun registry. That is it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code.

What I am about to say has probably been said by a number of my colleagues, but I will reiterate some of the key points.

I believe, as many government members have already stated, that under article 10 of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, Canada is required to establish brokering controls. It is important to note that within the proposed legislation, brokering is defined as arranging or negotiating a transaction that relates to the movement of goods or technology on a new brokering control list from a foreign country to another foreign country.

Under the government's proposed legislation, the act would implement controls around the brokering of military goods between two countries outside of Canada. In addition, a legal obligation would be established whereby the Minister of Foreign Affairs considers specific assessment criteria prior to authorizing permits. For summary conviction offences, the maximum fine under the Export and Import Permits Act, or EIPA, would be increased from $25,000 to $250,000. Under the Arms Trade Treaty, all states are assigned the primary responsibility in establishing and implementing their respective national control systems. Within the framework of the Arms Trade Treaty, the Department of National Defence is required to be brought into the export control system.

There have been many arguments put forward that the legislation before us is flawed. My colleagues have named a number of them. I would like to summarize some of the concerns I have with Bill C-47.

First, it is important to know that Canada already has a responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment that meets or exceeds the UN treaty.

There are three of four areas I will touch on.

The first is the Trade Controls Bureau in Ottawa, which regulates the Export and Import Permits Act. Since 1947, it has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including those that are a security threat, involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanctions by the United Nations.

The second is that specific items are already heavily restricted by Canada include military or strategic dual-use goods; nuclear energy materials and technology; missile, chemical or biological goods; and cryptological equipment. Companies throughout Canada are leaders in many of these areas.

The third is that we are already tracking and recording more than what is required under the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classify these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization.

Canada can also utilize a blanket ban on trade with risk countries through the use of the area control list, which, under the Export and Import Permits Act, through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on that list. North Korea is there at present. In the past, the list has included Belarus and Myanmar.

Furthermore, countries that represent the majority of the sales of military equipment, Russia and the United States, have either not signed or have not, and likely will not, ratified the treaty, which has been mentioned by my colleagues here today. Like many ineffective international treaties, the key participants in the trade are not part of the treaty, which raises alarm bells in itself.

The Department of National Defence, as a crown department, is traditionally exempted from the export control system. Exports of military aid or government-to-government gifts do not require authorization, and occur without oversight by Canadian export control officials.

Article 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty would require bringing our Department of National Defence into the export control system. I know that many MPs have stated that any Arms Trade Treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for uses such as sports shooting, hunting, and collecting.

The Liberals have moved forward with an Arms Trade Treaty that does not respect the legitimate trade or use of hunting and sporting firearms. We are concerned that little or no consultation with lawful gun owners was undertaken by the Liberals before they unilaterally decided to accede to this treaty. That brings to mind a meeting I held in my own constituency early in September, when I met with gun owners throughout my constituency and had a workshop with them. This bill was raised by those individuals in discussions.

They are the ones that were concerned about whether the government would be bringing in a backdoor gun registry again, as my colleague from Kawartha Lakes just mentioned. This is a concern that is on people's minds, not only in my constituency. My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has mentioned as well that there was a concern in her area, my neighbouring constituency in Saskatchewan.

There are a number of reasons Canadians are feeling they cannot possibly trust the Liberal government when it comes to some of these areas, or they have concerns about some of the things that might be in this bill. That is because the government has already not fulfilled some of the other promises they made, and have driven extensive legislation out of the way to overtax citizens in Canada. The carbon tax, the implementation of the corporate tax laws it is looking at, are some examples, and of course, the idea there may be a gun registry coming back.

From the discussions and calls I have received since that meeting in Brandon three weeks ago on gun registries, Bill C-47, and the thoughts on them, we have also seen a much more driven focus by the Liberal government to tax. It is trying to bring in corporate tax changes on small businesses, medium-sized farming operations, and family farming operations. There is much concern in our rural areas about driving away professionals such as doctors, which are already in short supply.

With those concerns, I will not be supporting Bill C-47.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, before my hon. colleague's speech took a bit of a detour at the end, he was effectively affirming what we have been saying in this House over the past two days of debate on this bill. What this bill would do is keep in place a record-keeping regime that has existed since the 1940s, existed under the previous Conservative government, and in no way affects lawful gun ownership in Canada.

He referenced the brokering controls that come into place under the accession to the ATT in Bill C-47, a system that would mimic the regime that has been in place since the 1940s. All we are saying is that Canada has a role to play in ensuring the brokering of conventional arms that often enter into conflict zones, where they are used for terrible purposes, is something we as a country should be stepping up to the plate to help better oversee and monitor.

Bill C-47 is a commitment to strengthen Canada's role in the arms export regime. It does nothing to law-abiding gun owners in Canada. Does the member realize that early on his speech he effectively affirmed just that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Kawartha, I want to make sure there is legitimacy in the bill. It has not been confirmed by the act as it is written in certain sections, or else the local citizens, which many of my colleagues have talked about, would not be raising the issues of concern they have. It would have been very simple for the government to make a blanket statement that those were removed, but it has not.

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

Mr. Speaker, following-up on the comment from my friend, the parliamentary secretary, it is so interesting that the Liberals want to completely downplay any impact of this, as if they think there is no point in the legislation in the first place.

We know that people have raised substantial and legitimate concerns. If the government is so dismissive of the substantial effect of its own legislation, does the member have any thoughts on why it is doing so in the first place?

We have an arms control system. While there are other countries that need to improve their arms control, we have a very strong arms control system in Canada. Why not just leave it at that?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. It is the point I was trying to make in my earlier comments that the parliamentary secretary was alluding to. A good deal of what is there was already in place before the Liberals ever brought the bill forward. All we are saying is that the government has other issues in the bill that it could have either left out or clarified. Therefore, Canadians are leery of the process of why the bill is before them in the first place.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

He explained his position very clearly, but since there is a good chance the bill will be sent to committee for further study following the vote at second reading, I want to ask him if he thinks Canada would be justified in reducing our trade with countries that violate human rights and not authorizing trade through the United States, when it cannot be done directly.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out that a number of years back when our foreign affairs minister was dealing with this, Canada's position was based on fairness and law-abiding rules. One of the statements I received in an email was, “We received a strong mandate to implement our platform, including abolishing the wasteful long-gun registry [here in Canada]. It does not make sense to abolish that registry at home only to support one internationally.” I will leave it at that.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-47, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code (amendments permitting the accession to the Arms Trade Treaty and other amendments).

As Conservatives, our party has always supported efforts to establish international standards for arms transfer that help prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflict, encourage terrorism, or organized crime.

There is nothing new here. The argument is around what the bill could do and whether it is really needed, and whether it is fair and effective. I will be addressing the bill from these standpoints.

However, we also believe that any treaty should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible Canadian citizens for their personal and recreational use, including sport shooting, hunting, and collecting. This is a focal point in this whole argument, so how can we agree to any act that would not at least address some internal issues that really matter to our own citizens in Canada? That is a very important element that we should address and pay attention to.

As such, this bill is ineffective and unfair. I will address those points. This bill would establish controls over brokering in military goods between two countries outside Canada, create a legal obligation on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to consider certain assessment criteria before authorizing permits, and increase the maximum fine under the EIPA from $25,000 to $250,000 for summary conviction offences. The ATT assigns the primary responsibility of all states in establishing and implementing their respective national control systems. Article 5 of the ATT requires bringing DND into the export control system.

At the outset we know that Canada has a very responsible internal system to monitor and control the export of military and security equipment, a system that meets or exceeds the UN treaty.

Based on that, we are ahead of the game and ahead of the world in how we address certain issues. The question that comes to mind is, why are we entertaining something that is less important, less effective, and also far behind? Are we taking a step forward here, or are we taking a step backwards?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Forward.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I do not think so. I think this bill is ineffective because the Trade Controls Bureau already regulates the trade under the Export and Import Permits Act, which since 1947 has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including if they are a security threat, are involved in internal or external conflict, or are under sanction by the United Nations.

Our regime already addresses the issue of countries under sanction by the United Nations. We are already ahead of the game, addressing and working with the United Nations. I cannot understand why this bill is necessary. It repeats existing work. It is definitely not a progressive move, but a regressive one.

Somebody has to stand up and raise the flag and ask, “Why are we doing this?”

Second, specific items are already heavily restricted by Canada. They include military or strategic dual use goods, including nuclear energy materials and technology, missiles, chemical or biological goods, and cryptological equipment. What is new? What would Bill C-47 do for us that we have not already been doing for a long time? In the 70 years since 1947, we have been ahead of the world. Therefore, if I do not call this a total waste of time, I would call it an unnecessary and time-consuming shift in focus.

Third, we are already tracking and recording more than is required under the ATT. The Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect information on all items exported from Canada and classifies these items using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization. Again, we have data. The ATT does not share data, which is something we also have to pay attention to. When we have our own data, we control our borders. We have all these high standards, so why should we, under any circumstance, take a step backward?

In addition, Canada can also utilize a blanket ban on trade with risky countries through the use of the area control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. Through an act of the Governor in Council, a country can be placed on the list. North Korea, at present, is an example. In the past, we have included Belarus and Myanmar on that list. Again, Canada's role has always been ahead of the international community's and on those measures. We have always been there, and our role has been a fine example to the rest of the international community, with all due respect to the United Nations itself.

Also, a very interesting point I should be bringing up is that major countries that represent the majority of sales of military equipment have declined to sign the agreement. This is evidence of why the bill is ineffective. If three of the top six countries that export military equipment are not in the treaty, logically speaking the treaty would be very ineffective. Therefore, we had better stick to our system, which we can control. It is a system that we created and under which we have been ahead of the whole world for 70 years.

The Department of National Defence, as a department of the crown, is traditionally exempt from the export control system. Exports of military aid or government-to-government gifts do not require authorization and occur without oversight by Canadian export control officials. Article 5 of the ATT would require bringing DND into the export control system.

On a final note, the bill is unfair. It is unfair to our citizens. It seems like the government is only working on improving its image, without paying attention to the interests of law-abiding Canadians, like hunters and sport shooters.

Another important argument I would bring to the House is that the government has not consulted Canadians. Where is the consultation? Where is the government that consults on everything? Why did it not consult on this with law-abiding Canadians?

Moreover, what are the benefits? There are no benefits. It is a total waste of time to even go that route. We could pay attention to more important stuff instead of just repeating something again and again. It is not a step forward. It is a step backward.

In summary, I have spoken on two important elements in regard to the bill: its ineffectiveness and its unfairness.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what is unfair is the complete and utter phony rhetoric coming from the Conservative benches on the non-issue of supposed changes to domestic firearms ownership in Canada.

That said, I would agree with the member that this government has had to work doubly hard to improve its image on the international scene after 10 years of isolation and darkness under the Stephen Harper government of Canada. It let itself slip in how the rest of the world viewed us as being the leading country on the international stage.

Moving out of that darkness, let me enlighten the member on one of the new aspects contained in this bill, the regulation of brokering, which is the facilitation of the trade of goods from one country to another. That is a new aspect of this bill, and the brokering regulations in this bill would fall under the exact same regulations that have been in place since the 1940s, including under the previous Conservative government. That is one thing that is new. Let me just reaffirm for everyone paying attention to this debate that one thing that is not new is any change to domestic firearms ownership in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we go to the hon. member for Edmonton Manning, I just want to remind the hon. members that although do get some heckling back and forth, I am hearing some stuff that is very personal and could be considered unparliamentary. I just want to warn the individual, without naming him, that it is coming to my ears and that is not good.

The hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is phony and bogus is the government members trying to claim that Canada was a bad boy, running from its responsibilities in the international community. This is the negative rhetoric coming from the current government. The Liberals try hard, thinking that people will believe the rhetoric that Canada was a bad person running from its responsibilities to the international community. Canada has never run away from its responsibilities on the world stage, and it is bogus for the government members to argue that someone who claims otherwise is bogus and phony. There is nothing more phony than a government that takes every opportunity to show it is the best and everyone else is worth nothing.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring this to the attention of the House. We all remember former minister Baird as a great guy who represented a Toronto riding. This is just something that his office said. He wanted to have fairness for law-abiding hunters and sportsmen. One of the reasons we signed on to the original agreement was the desire to exempt sports hunters and sports shooters, etc. However, that did not happen and that is why we could not sign it. Former minister Baird referred to how afraid the Liberal Party was of being branded as re-establishing that registry because it has a lot of rural ridings. He said that it does not make sense to abolish that registry only to support one internationally. That is exactly why we are opposed to Bill C-47.

Does my hon. colleague think it is okay on the one hand as a government to get rid of a registry that nobody seemed to like in Canada, and that was brought in by a former Liberal government, and then establish another one internationally? Does he think that is okay?