House of Commons Hansard #305 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I am going to ask her a very simple question. With respect to Bill C-47, what does she think of the fact that Canada sold arms to Saudi Arabia and that those arms may have been used against civilians? Does she think that is a good thing or a bad thing?
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, when we start out and take on a contract, we have intentions and do not think they will be used incorrectly. However, when we find information to the contrary, then we have to reevaluate our decisions. I think it is clear that we want to make sure that Canada is not contributing to violence against women and girls, that we are not contributing to violence in the world, and that we are not contributing to conflict in the world.
I hinted in my speech about how we need to get better traceability on where weapons are going, and what is happening with them. When information presents itself, I think we need to take action.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate. I agree with some of the things my Conservative colleague just said, but I disagree with others. One of the things we have in common is that neither of us understands why the Liberal members here are so scared.
It is your bill. Why are you not talking? Why are you refusing to debate your own bill? Are you trying to hide? Are you ashamed? Is it that you are not proud of it? Why do you not want to talk? Is it that you do not like confrontation, because it makes you uncomfortable?
You are making us sit until midnight every night because you are behind—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Order. Order. I must remind the member to address the Chair, not individuals or the government. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has fallen behind on its legislative agenda. It is forcing parliamentarians to stay late into the night to study its bills because it is incapable of moving its legislative agenda forward. Now it is asking us to debate an important bill that speaks to significant Canadian and, dare I say it, Liberal values, like freedom and respect. However, the Liberals refuse to talk about it. It is utterly baffling. It would be all the more baffling if we were talking about another bill to legalize a certain substance, but that is not the topic of tonight's debate.
It is somewhat surreal that only the official opposition, the second opposition party, and the others are interested in debating this major bill governing Canada's arms exports to other countries. I will come back to this, because it speaks to fundamental values we hold. There is a general tendency to puff up with pride when this subject comes up, but when the time comes to choose between profits and respecting certain rights, the Liberal government shows its true colours. Again, this bill is not reflective of the standards, values, and principles that we have embraced as a society and that the government claims to care about here and around the world.
Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work and absolutely amazing job being done by my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie on this file, specifically at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I also want to applaud her assistant, Jennifer Pedersen, who has been doing fantastic work on this file for years now.
This evening we are debating Bill C-47, introduced by the federal government, which should be capable of applying the principles of such an important treaty as the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. The Arms Trade Treaty is pretty simple. The general principle states that we should not sell arms to a country if we have any reason to suspect, based on overwhelming evidence, that it might use those weapons against civilian populations, either its own or in neighbouring countries.
Unfortunately, we seriously doubt that the Liberal government's Bill C-47 will manage to address this very basic concern. We must prohibit the sale of weapons to countries that violate human rights. This leads us to reflect on some philosophical and political questions. Who are we as a society? What role do we want to play in the world? What is our own identity? If we are proud to be a country that respects human rights here and abroad, we cannot have a double standard. Human rights are not optional. We cannot be satisfied with respecting them only when it suits us, only to make an exception when other interests prevail.
Respecting human rights means always. As progressives, New Democrats, and humanists, we want to make sure those rights are respected. That is part of our values as Quebeckers and Canadians. We cannot say one thing and then do the opposite. Unfortunately, Bill C-47 provides absolutely no guarantee that our identity and the image we want to project to the world will be respected.
Let us remember that, once the Liberals took office, they signed an export permit for the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. We now know that those weapons were used against civilian populations in Saudi Arabia and likely against civilian populations in Yemen, a neighbouring country torn by a very intense civil war. However, the Liberals tried to mislead us. The Prime Minister told us that there was no problem and that Canada had only sold Saudi Arabia Jeeps, or vehicles that were practically buses.
It turns out that the Jeeps in question were armoured vehicles, some light and some heavy. Normally, a government that respected the principles of the Arms Trade Treaty would not have signed the export permit.
I understand that a contract had been signed previously, but the government still could have exercised due diligence, respected our international commitments, and refused to issue the permit because there was too great a risk that those weapons would be used against the civilian population. Instead, the Liberal government decided to thumb its nose at all of those values and sign the export contract for the weapons.
After that, I do not understand how the Liberals can show their faces on the international stage and say that they are champions of human rights and that they want to win back Canada's seat on the United Nations Security Council, when they are not even capable of abiding by that treaty. The government introduced a bill to say that it will abide by the treaty, but there is no guarantee that it will do so.
In fact, there is a giant gaping loophole the size of the Grand Canyon in this bill.
Before moving on to that topic, I want to mention that the Liberal government's current bill includes absolutely nothing for re-evaluating existing export permits. Even if we were determined to act in good faith and there was no information or event to suggest that these arms could be used against civilians, there still should be an export permit re-evaluation mechanism.
However, Bill C-47 includes no measure for re-evaluating permits, even if there are credible allegations of human rights violations. That means that we are rushing to sell arms before getting all the information, and once the other country violates human rights and attacks civilians, we wash our hands of the whole thing, because there is no export permit re-evaluation process. It is quite incredible.
The huge loophole I was talking about a minute ago is that all exports of military goods to the United States are exempt. Under Bill C-47, exports of military materiel, arms, equipment, or partial equipment to the United States do not fall under the ax of the Liberal government's Bill C-47.
That means that we could sell arms to the United States, which could then sell them to a dictatorship that might attack civilians. There is nothing we could do about that under this bill.
We could sell a piece of equipment, a rifle part or a cannon part, to the United States, which could then sell them to people or governments that violate human rights and that would not fall on the chopping block of Bill C-47. Such sales represent half of our exports.
The Liberals have managed to circumvent the Arms Trade Treaty. If this bill had teeth, half of our exports could not be evaluated by this bill. It is unfathomable.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, we have been having a great back and forth this evening between the NDP and the Conservative Party. I wonder if the member has any inclination as to what the Liberals thoughts are on this tonight.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I am an objective observer, but they obviously must not be too proud of their bill, since they are all staring at their computers, iPads, or notes. They refuse to listen to the opposition's comments, even though the bill is like Gruyère cheese with no teeth. The bill does not comply with the UN Arms Trade Treaty, since it exempts all of our arms exports to the United States.
One more thing: the bill has no influence or power over the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC. This is the crown corporation that sold helicopters to the Duterte government in the Philippines, but the Liberal bill would not allow us to do anything about CCC.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech. During question period this week, we heard even more of his expressions. I had the privilege of participating in an environment committee hearing today, and he had a good run.
Did my colleague expect better from the Liberal government? Did he expect the Liberals to step up and keep their election promises? His speech seemed to raise a big question mark, but I am wondering if he expected better.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely pertinent question. I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that a few years ago, there was an excellent game show on Quebec television called Fais-moi un dessin, or draw me a picture. People could draw one picture, two pictures, three pictures—all kinds of pictures.
I have a sad feeling that we have a government with no clear direction, except that it tends to do the opposite of what it said in the election campaign. I could recite a list, and it is quite fascinating. It includes combatting tax havens, creating a strong environmental assessment process, closing tax loopholes for CEOs, reforming the electoral system, and now, combatting climate change.
Yes, I do agree with my colleague. The Liberals are doing the opposite of what they told us they would do two and a half years ago.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I wonder if this debate is a harbinger of where we are going to be after 2019, with mostly Conservatives and New Democrats giving speeches. We are hearing as much from the Liberals in the House today as we did from Rachel Notley in the last election about the carbon tax, just to make sure this is not a totally Conservative-NDP love-in.
I want to ask the NDP about the amendment that Conservatives proposed in committee. It would have ensured that the brokering control list did not include small arms such as rifles, carbines, revolvers, or pistols intended for hunting or sport.
We agree with the NDP in principle that Canada should not be selling arms that go on to be used in atrocities or violations of human rights. However, very clearly ensuring that the brokering control list does not include certain kinds of weapons that are very much intended for hunting and recreation does not raise problems in terms of human rights.
Would the NDP agree with us that this is a good amendment and that providing protection for those kinds of tools does not raise any kind of attendant human rights concern?
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, it is amusing to see Liberal members on the other side who have been muzzled and seem a bit restless. They seem to want to participate in the discussion, but unfortunately, they are not allowed to talk.
Indeed, this bill must address the wholesale trade of arms to governments that will give them to their armies to use. I agree with my colleague that we must protect the rights of our hunters and fishers, but that is not exactly the purpose and nature of this bill. I agree that people who use weapons for recreational activities or hunting should be protected. This is true.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-47. In some ways, I think the bill is connected to Bill C-71. I was very much looking forward to speaking to this bill, because the good people of Peace River—Westlock sent me here, and one of the mandates I ran on was to protect the rights of firearms owners in Canada. I am incredibly pleased to speak to this.
We, on the Conservative side, have always stood up for the rights of firearms owners. I was particularly interested in being here tonight to see what the Liberals had to say and to hold the Liberal government to account on what they had to say about this particular bill. We have been here this evening for a very long time, and we have not heard from a single Liberal, not in the time I have been sitting here.
It is disappointing that we have not been able to hold them to account and ask the tough questions that need to be asked. I see that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is here this evening. I know that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is a big fan of mine, and she always likes to participate in debates. We sit on committee together. I know that she definitely enjoys my speeches.
This evening she has not been engaged whatsoever with the topic at hand. She has not participated. She has not given a speech. She has not even asked a question. I have been very disappointed with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul that she has not outlined her opinion on Bill C-47. I have not heard a single word from her. She has been sitting here all night. We have been laying out our opinions on the bill. We have been telling Canadians what the good people of Peace River—Westlock think and have to say about firearms rights and this backdoor long-gun registry the Liberals are bringing in, particularly with Bill C-47 but also with Bill C-71.
I was looking forward to hearing what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to say. I know we have a great relationship. We work together on committee. We rarely agree on things, but we definitely like to spar back and forth. I was looking forward to hearing what she had to say this evening. Unfortunately, to this point, anyway, she has not gotten up to ask any questions or to lay out her opinions about this particular bill. I am not sure what the people from Kildonan—St. Paul think about that. I hope to hear from her.
Bill C-47 is an important piece of legislation. It brings Canada in line with the UN treaty that was previously signed. I am not quite sure if I am totally excited about that. I know that the Liberal government has undermined Canadians' trust in it whenever it comes to firearms. When this particular bill was introduced, I remember sitting here with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. We went through the bill together.
I remember being triggered by some of the words in there: “list”, “permit”, “record”. These are words firearms owners in Canada are not excited to read whenever there is any kind of firearms legislation. If we see words like “list”, “permit”, “record”, “registry”, or “registrar”, it sends alarm bells to firearms owners across Canada. I know that when the bill came in, we had a look at it. Those words appeared in Bill C-47 69 times.
We put out a call to firearms owners across Canada, and believe me, we heard back, loud and clear, that Canadian firearms owners, licensed firearms owners, do not trust the Liberals whatsoever when it comes to handling their rights in Canada.
We heard back strongly that this was not the direction we needed to go. The Conservatives, being the adults in the room this evening, have brought forward an amendment that would help alleviate the fears. We do not often like to help the Liberals when they stick their foot in it, but this time we thought, for the sake of the country, we would help them. We proposed amendments to help out Canadian legal firearms owners to make sure that their rights were protected, because that is, in fact what I was sent here, on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock, to do, to stand up for the rights of firearms owners.
This is just part of the ongoing trend of lack of accountability from those folks. We see it again tonight, when they are not willing to stand and defend their own legislation. We see it time and again. In the Liberals' last platform, I heard over and over again how they would have a new level of openness, that there would be transparency on every level. However, tonight we are debating important legislation and nobody is laying out his or her view of the bill.
One of the other things that is very concerning about the government is that it does not see past city limits. When I say that, I am thinking specifically of the rural crime issue in Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan and Alberta. It is tied to some degree to the downturn in the economy. We have seen a correlation in the downturn in the economy with a rise in rural crime. I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Liberal government. It has done nothing to protect the Canadian economy. In fact, it has thrown gasoline on the fire when it should have brought out the water hose. We have definitely seen the wrong output from the government. Then, to top it all off, when it should be focusing on the economy, it brings forward anti-firearm legislation. That just shows how out of touch the Liberal government is with the Canadian population.
After Liberals introduce this legislation, they turn tail and run. They cannot even stand in this place and defend their actions when it comes to Bill C-47, tonight in particular. I was looking forward to sparring on this legislation, but here we are with the NDP and the Conservatives are having a robust debate in the House of Commons. It has been significantly frustrating to pin down the Liberals when it comes to holding up the rights of Canadians.
I go back to the language in the bill. I mentioned earlier that words like “list”, “permit”, “record”, and “registry” show up 69 times in Bill C-47 and over 30 times in Bill C-71. However, there is no mention of gangs or gun violence whatsoever. This shows that Liberals do not understand the issue. The issue is not a particular firearm. The issue is that they have undermined the economy and Canadians' respect for firearms.
We are calling on the government to do something about rural crime and they bring forward firearm legislation that only goes after law-abiding citizens. If the law is changed, these citizens will comply with it. It is why they are called “law-abiding citizens”. It is why they have firearms licences. It is why they lawfully own firearms.
Criminals are not too concerned about where or how firearms are purchased. They are going to be out there regardless. We need to ensure we hold the government to account. We need to ensure that when we try to target issues like gang violence in the country, we put forward legislation that will do that. If we want to target gangs, we should be resourcing our police departments properly.
I will definitely be voting against Bill C-47.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development
Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the opposition complaining about having to be here, and this is only day three of extended hours.
The Conservatives say they are willing to stop debate on Bill C-47, but only if the government agrees not to call any other legislation. That makes no sense. They have been complaining about not having enough time to debate legislation, and extending the hours allows them to debate important legislation, so why do they suddenly not want to debate?
The government has been asking for information. The NDP has provided it, but the Conservatives have refused to provide it. Why do they ask for more debate time and then complain about getting it?
The government has spoken on this legislation, and we are now ready to advance it to the next stage. I would encourage opposition members to share information, as there is a better way to work in this place if they are willing to do so. We have not seen their desire to do so yet, but perhaps there is a way forward to be better.
They say they are eager to debate legislation, and yet they forced a vote on Bill C-57 when the House supported the bill. They did the same thing for private member's bill, Bill C-391.
If Conservative members can confirm that no members want to speak to Bill C-47 and they are prepared to let the debate collapse, then we would most certainly be happy to see the clock at midnight.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, I would be happy to stay here all night to debate this piece of legislation.
I was hoping for a question from my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. I did ask for her to interact with me earlier.
It is great to be here tonight, and I was hoping to hear what the Liberals had to say about this particular piece of legislation. We have been here for several hours now, but I have not heard a peep from the Liberals on Bill C-47, the Liberal government's backdoor long-gun registry. I am happy to be here tonight to debate Bill C-47.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, the point that has been raised tonight, and it is an important point, is that when we have a piece of government legislation, regardless of the hour and regardless of the context, one would think the Liberals would be proud of it, yet at committee we heard witnesses on all sides of this issue who were critical of the bill. They did not see it in some cases as actually implementing the treaty. They also saw it as imposing all kinds of red tape for firearms owners.
The Liberals refused reasoned amendments that would have fixed the concerns of law-abiding firearms owners while preserving the basic structure of the system we have in place in terms of arms control, which gives discretion to the minister on whether or not to approve the sale of arms. For any of the controversial arms sales that have been discussed in the House many times, it is still ultimately up to the discretion of the minister as to how they proceed.
The point is that members of the government are embarrassed about their own legislation. That is the point. I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Madam Speaker, I was very concerned that I did not get a question out of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, but I will take it up with her later for sure.
The one thing that I forgot to mention in my speech earlier is that this particular bill may make firearms more expensive in Canada. They are already very expensive, and I am concerned that in the context of standing up for the rights of firearms owners, this is often a piece that is overlooked. This legislation would mean it would cost Canadian firearms owners significantly more to get firearms in Canada. This is another reason to oppose this legislation.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
[Chair read text of motion to the House]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.