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.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 361 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 362 to 402.

The question is on Motion No. 403. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 404 to 409. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 403 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 404 to 409.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 4, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of 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 reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed your reading of the amendments and I think you did a splendid job getting through them all. I hear a member opposite saying “on division”. These are two of my favourite words spoken in this Parliament. I will want to see those recorded votes when they happen.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-47, which is a bill that would implement an international arms control treaty. In preparation for speaking on this bill, I went through past interventions given by other members in which they contributed their thoughts as to the impact that the bill will have on their constituents. I went through the intervention from the member for Portage—Lisgar on this particular bill, and that is where I would like to begin.

I am going to refer to the bill as the companion bill to Bill C-71, which is a piece of firearms legislation that the government has introduced as well. I do not think we can look at either of the bills separately. I look at the bills as logically following one from the other. They have the same idea behind them.

In the intervention, the member said:

At best, despite amendments, we are in a place where Canadians...cannot trust the government on firearms...Despite earlier attempts through Bill C-47, the government has failed to recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership and has moved to create all sorts of unnecessary problems and red tape for responsible firearms owners.

We see in the companion bill to Bill C-47, which is Bill C-71, that in fact the government is making lawful and legitimate firearms ownership more complicated, more complex, and more difficult for Canadians.

Firearms ownership allows Canadians to hunt and participate in sports like sharpshooting, and to prepare for biathlon. This is a part of our inheritance and heritage that Canadians enjoy. There are Canadians who have been doing these types of activities for generations in Canada. It is a great part of our Canadian history and it is part of our dual national history. Both French Canadians and English Canadians have been participating in these types of activities and have contributed to the growth of Canada's lands in a dominion that formed our great Confederation.

Another member said about Bill C-47:

Most critically, it effectively recreates the federal gun registry by requiring the tracking of all imported and exported firearms and requires that the information be available to the minister for six years. Given that those are calendar years, it could be up to seven years.

Firearms groups and individual owners have repeatedly expressed concerns about the implications of [those six years]. They want a strong system of arms control, but they point out that in fact we already have one.

We know that many of the provisions that are being proposed in this ATT are already being done. There is nothing really new here. We know there is already tracking and recording, and more of it is being done right now. The 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. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves why we are implementing a treaty that will simply add onto red tape and the bureaucracy that we already have here in Ottawa.

The previous member I spoke of also went into some of the details. Both the ATT and its companion bill, Bill C-71, do not mention organized crime and will, in fact, do nothing to stop gangsters from obtaining firearms in Canada and using them in their illicit activities, because people who do not obey the law today and who participate in gangsterism and gang activities will not obey the law either way. They are earning their living through illicit activities like counterfeiting and human trafficking, so they will not be interested in caring about the contents of Bill C-47 and its companion bill, Bill C-71. This is simply more bureaucracy and more red tape being imposed on law-abiding Canadians, who of course are going to try their best to obey the law.

An argument that could be made too on Bill C-47 is that it is actually going to impose restrictions on the Department of National Defence, which is traditionally exempted from the export control system so as to be able to provide military aid or government-to-government gifts, such as the loaning or gifting of equipment to another government or a potential ally that we are supporting.

In spending this past weekend at the spring session of the NATO organizations meetings in Poland, I was able to hear from other member states that are looking forward to receiving more support from the Canadian government, Ukraine and Georgia. Our allies in the Baltic states are all hoping to see Canada step up and provide more support. They are satisfied with what we have done up to now, but they want to see more of it, so how does it make it simpler for us to add the Department of National Defence to the list of those who have to comply with this export control treaty?

In fact, it will make it more complicated and more bureaucratic. There will be more red tape involved in trying to support our allies in NATO, and it does not help in any way. That is in article 5 of the ATT.

There are other countries we could be supporting as well. We may want to provide them with additional support. I remember that in the past two and a half years the Canadian government said it would support the Kurdistan Regional Government's fight versus ISIS. I am privileged to chair in this House the pro-Kurdish group, the Parliamentary Friends of the Kurds. I have spoken to many Kurdish leaders, both in Canada and outside of Canada, including Syrian leaders and others, who at one point were promised they would be able to obtain Canadian weapons to support the fight versus Daesh. Those weapons eventually never came.

Would it have made it simpler to impose more red tape, more arms controls on people we are supporting publicly and encouraging to take the fight directly to terrorist organizations like Daesh, which were trying to set up a proto-state? No, it would not. That is my concern with treaties such as this one, which I will be opposing and happily voting against.

There is a Yiddish proverb that goes, “Uphill we always climb with caution, downhill we dash, carefree.” I am afraid we are dashing carefree down this hill. There is the perception that more government, more red tape, and more bureaucracy makes us safer, makes our communities better, and achieves some type of vague public policy goal whereby more government equals greater safety for Canadians. Tell that to rural Canadians. Tell that to people who live just south of my riding, who are afraid enough at night that they turn off their porch lights so people do not know their homes are there. That way, they do not have to deal with Calgary gangsters coming out to rural communities to commit crimes, to invade their homes and steal their property because it is easier than doing it in the city because there are fewer police officers in our rural communities. It is just a fact of life that there are fewer people and fewer police officers. It is simple logic. It just happens that way.

I hear the member for Foothills saying it is in his riding, and there are many members with ridings next to each other. My kids actually go to school in his riding. This is something rural Canadians have to deal with. How would Bill C-47 help them? It would not. It would not make life any easier for them, and neither would the companion bill, Bill C-71.

Law-abiding Canadians are going to keep abiding by the law. They are going to obey the law. We can count on firearms owners to do just that every single time. Therefore, why are we dashing carefree down that hill, expecting that more government, more bureaucracy, more red tape at the bottom of the hill will somehow keep us safer? They can introduce all the rules they want in the world, and it still will not help.

The Speaker is giving me the sign that I have one minute left, and here I was going to read to the chamber the list of states that have neither signed nor acceded to the ATT and the states that have signed but not yet ratified the ATT. It would have been riveting reading for the members of this House to understand exactly the number of states that are not participating in this treaty. Many of those who will not be participating in this treaty are arms dealers and many of them share weapons among themselves. They are not regimes that can be expected to obey any type of international law in the near future. For the most part, these are regimes we do not count among our friends, either. The governments that will obey this agreement are law-abiding, lawful western governments, and this measure would be restricting their ability to support their allies overseas.

I will be happily voting against this bill—it is a bad bill—as well as the companion bill, Bill C-71, and I look forward to the debate in this House.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what my friend from Calgary Shepard said by pointing out that Conservatives at the committee at which the bill was considered, and I am a member of that committee, put forward an amendment to try to improve the bill, an amendment that would have protected law-abiding firearms owners. We did this working with stakeholders, in good faith, and frankly, the government had given us every reason to believe that it might be open to that. We know that there were concerns among some of the rural members, some of which leaked out of caucus discussions, who are very worried about the way the government approaches firearms owners.

We put forward a reasonable amendment to try to help the government improve the bill. The member for Durham proposed an amendment that said:

The Brokering Control List may not include small arms that are rifles, carbines, revolvers or pistols intended for hunting or sport, for recreational use, or for a cultural or historical purpose.

That would have been a clear exclusion in the bill that would have allowed us to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty while still providing protection for firearms owners. The government, while professing to not want to go after law-abiding firearms owners through the bill, refused this amendment.

It was not, at the end of the day, about acceding to the treaty at all, because the Liberals had a choice. They could have supported a reasoned Conservative amendment to improve the legislation, yet they refused to accept that amendment. They came up with an alternative amendment that did not address the issue and that whitewashed the question.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on his comments in terms of how the government is using every opportunity, whether it is this bill or Bill C-71, to go after law-abiding firearms owners. When the Liberals could have accepted an amendment that would have addressed this issue, they refused that amendment.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, we on the Conservative side propose amendments at committee, because we are trying to climb uphill, back to my Yiddish proverb. We are cautiously hoping the government will consider reasonable, rational amendments that will improve government legislation. Often, the Liberals vote them down. As happened at finance committee, the government sometimes votes them down without saying a single word.

In this case, the member is right. Our side proposed a reasonable amendment that would have provided protection for firearms owners in Canada to continue hunting and sharpshooting. It was a reasonable protection afforded to them directly in the language of the bill, not in the preamble, that would have allowed them to continue the practices of our ancestors, a generation of Canadians who have lawfully hunted for their food for subsistence or who have hunted with their kids and family members as part of their family traditions. They have participated in sharpshooting clubs on weekends and enjoyed a sport that is widely practised in Canada.

I do not understand why Liberal caucus members could not support such a reasonable amendment. It might be because they knew that Bill C-71, the companion bill, was coming down, and therefore, they could not bring themselves to support such a reasonable action to protect firearms owners.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2018 / 8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, did I just hear the opposition member say that he was in contact with Syrians and people in the Middle East who asked for guns and Canada was providing them?

That is a rather troubling assertion.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member misunderstood.

I said that the Kurdistan government, in northern Iraq, had asked for help from the Government of Canada, which promised at the time to provide it. This assistance would have been used to fight Daesh. It was the Kurdistan government, in northern Iraq, that made this request. The Government of Canada tried to provide this assistance but, of course, it never did.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, who articulated so very well the issues we are facing, certainly not only in rural Alberta but in rural communities across the country.

I would like to start by telling a story about an incident that happened in my constituency not long ago. Friends of mine told me about burglars coming into their house. Their children were in the basement. It was the middle of the day. They came down the stairs to the basement, armed. Their very large 17-year-old son was able to walk up the stairs and scare these burglars off, but they were very concerned about what could have happened to their three kids who were home alone that day. Of course, the burglars did not leave empty-handed; they took four vehicles from the farm on their way out the gate.

This is what residents throughout rural Canada are facing right now: a steep increase in rural crime. The Liberal government had an opportunity over this past year to address this issue.

I was very proud to be a member of the rural crime task force, which was made up of several Conservative Alberta members of Parliament. We held town halls throughout the province over the last six or seven months. We put together a list of more than a dozen very strong recommendations that we will be presenting to the government later this spring.

Many of the messages we heard from constituents were clear, no matter which open house we attended throughout Alberta. People were asking for stiffer penalties. People were asking for action against gang violence. People were asking for action to be taken against the illegal gun trade. People were asking for programs to address mental health. So many of these crimes are just a revolving door. A criminal robs a farmyard, goes to jail, gets a minimal fine, and is back out there, sometimes in hours, sometimes within days, repeating the crime.

Not one single time did I hear from the hundreds of Albertans that what they were really looking for was not one but maybe two gun registries. They were certainly not looking for a reduction in sentences for serious crimes.

When we look at the action the Liberal government is taking, it is going in the exact opposite direction that every rural Canadian is asking for. Rural Canadians are asking for stiffer fines and penalties and jail time. Canadians are asking for resources for our police services. Canadians are asking for a focus and a priority on safe communities. They are not asking for the Liberal government to ram through three bills that go against every single message we are getting from rural Canadians.

Let us take a look at Bill C-75, reforms to the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which would take dozens of crimes that were federal crimes and reduce them to summary conviction offences that may receive sentences of two years less a day. These include possession of goods from crime, theft, terrorist acts, and kidnapping children under 14 years old. I do not know where the common sense comes from with such a bill.

Canadians are asking us for exactly the opposite. I have not heard from one single Canadian that we need to address rural crime by reducing sentences to solve the problem. The government is not just reducing it from 10 years but is reducing it so that they may get a fine and be back on the streets. That is exactly what we are trying to prevent. It does not make sense. It is certainly frustrating for Canadians in our rural communities to see that this is the direction the government is going.

One of the first jobs of any government, no matter what the level, is to protect its citizens. This does anything but. It sends a very poor message to Canadians across the country who are looking for their government to stand up and protect them. The Liberal government is doing the exact opposite. It is going out of its way to ensure that criminals are the ones who are the priority.

Let us take a look at Bill C-71, which is on the Firearms Act. It would do nothing to address gang violence. It would do nothing to address gun crime. It certainly would not do anything to address rural crime issues.

This is another attack on law-abiding firearms owners and establishes another back-door gun registry. I would argue that Bill C-47 is another back-door gun registry. When the Liberal government has multiple opportunities to address the real crime issue, and I am being specific about that, because that is something that hits very close to home in my constituency, the Liberals put up window dressing on taking a hard stance on violent crime and gun crime, but all they are doing is attacking law-abiding firearms owners, who are certainly not the problem.

I am going to tell another story of a man in my riding, Eddie Maurice, in Okotoks, who many members may have heard of, who is now charged with a crime. He was protecting his property and young daughter from burglars who were going through his yard, his acreage. I can guarantee that the burglars on his property had not gone to Canadian Tire to purchase their firearms and make sure they were registered.

These bills are attacking the wrong people, and that is what Conservatives are finding to be incredibly frustrating with these two bills that are being rammed through by the Liberal government.

What Canadians are looking for is a Liberal government that is going to support them. Bill C-47 would not reduce illegal weapons coming into Canada. It would not reduce rural crime, and as I said before, it would not reduce gun violence or gang violence.

I would like my Liberal colleagues, during the question and answer period, to explain to me how, with the suite of legislation they are trying to ram through by the end of this session, I can go home to my constituents and tell them with all sincerity that I feel we have taken steps to protect their homes, properties, and families. I do not believe these bills would do any of those things.

When Conservatives were in government, a similar bill was before us, but we did not follow through on signing the arms treaty, because we were concerned about the limitations and the impact it would have on law-abiding firearms owners.

I would also point out that the Liberal government had some difficulty meeting some of its promises in its first mandate, but the promise I heard, in the words of the parliamentary secretary, is that it would in no way put any government restrictions on law-abiding Canadian citizens. I would argue that these pieces of legislation would do just that. If the Liberal government were concerned about putting forward legislation that would not impact law-abiding citizens, the language in this bill should have provided a certain level of certainty and legal assurances for Canadians that this would exempt them from some of these registrations. However, it asks our law-abiding firearms owners to go through even more hoops rather than addressing what I think is the most serious issue, and that is crime, especially in rural communities.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that for any government, the safety of Canadians and our communities is paramount and should be among its top priorities. I would ask my Liberal colleagues on the other side in government to take a hard second look at what their priorities are. Instead of attacking law-abiding firearms owners, put your focus on ensuring that rural communities are safe. I will be voting against this piece of legislation, because it does not do that.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I would remind the hon. member for Foothills that when someone says “you” here, it generally means the person is talking to the Speaker, so I would ask him to direct his comments to the floor.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

NDP

Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we were talking about exporting arms to other countries, so my questions will be related to that.

What is the use of legislation on arms export permits when more than half the arms sold by Canada are sold to the United States, a country that has not signed the Arms Trade Treaty and whose president has decided to relax the rules for arms exports? Does the member believe that this is in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the treaty?

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think our main concern with this treaty is the additional bureaucracy and red tape that it would add to the system. One of the concerns that we have is the additional cost that it would put on our businesses.

There is also a safety concern, as my colleague was talking about, where we could have warehouses with a substantial backlog of firearms, which are either going to be exported to other countries or be imported from other countries and moved across Canada. This is a huge safety concern, because we do not have the infrastructure in the country to be stamping all of these firearms. We do not have the equipment, or very few businesses have the equipment, to do that. This is something that has been overlooked in a lot of the discussion on this bill. The safety implications of having a large storehouse or backlog of many firearms sitting in warehouses is that the people who are going to be accessing firearms illegally would certainly have an opportunity to get their hands on a large cache of firearms. They will know that the firearms will be there waiting to be stamped before they can be exported.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I took, with reason, the member's comments about rural communities being attacked, and this is another attack on rural communities. The message we have seen from the Liberal government to rural communities concerns me. The first concern is that only $2 billion of the $180 billion in infrastructure funding is going to rural areas. Then we have this attack on guns. We have a carbon tax that people in rural communities are going to suffer disproportionately from, because they have to drive long distances. In addition to that, we have an all out war on agriculture, and no action to address the logjam of grain cars. It just seems like another attack in a long line of attacks.

I wonder if my colleague is hearing similar comments at the door in his riding.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would break that up into two parts.

First, absolutely, I am hearing that from rural Canadians, not only in my constituency but also across the country, from people who are questioning this attack on rural Canada. Certainly, for me in the west, we always kind of heard “east versus west”, but the comments I am hearing now are “urban versus rural”. Everything the Liberal government is doing now is focused on urban issues, with no priority and, I would go so far as to say, neglect of rural issues.

Second, in rural Canada, when we are talking about the crisis from the increase in rural crime, the Liberals are talking about imposing a firearms registry and attacking law-abiding firearms owners. I hope they would see their misplaced priorities in that sense.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for being part of our rural task force dealing with rural crime. We have had many round tables, as the member mentioned.

While we were doing that, the Alberta government reacted. The NDP government reacted by putting more policemen on the road and putting more money towards combatting rural crime. Yet, we have a Liberal government across the aisle that is doing just the opposite in reducing crime.

I wonder if he could speak briefly about where he sees the big difference between an NDP provincial government and the federal Liberal government.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

Conservative

John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Yellowhead, who took very active leadership in the rural crime task force, and for his work as a police officer for many years.

It was good to see the provincial government in Alberta set up the rural crime task force as well. Four teams across Alberta are moving to address hot spots in Alberta, and we are seeing them have a very strong impact. I wish the federal government would also start looking outside the box to find new and innovative ways to address rural crime.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:25 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have to start by saying what a delight it is tonight to hear the Conservative members from Alberta giving accolades to Premier Notley for taking strong action to protect rural Albertans. It certainly is an important issue, but it is absolutely not what we are here to debate tonight. I am pleased to say that I will be the first speaker tonight who will actually speak to Bill C-47. My colleagues and I are opposed to this bill, but for completely different reasons.

Why is this bill important and why is it important that we get it right? Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East. In the past 25 years, Canada has sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with deeply questionable human rights records. In 2014-15, only 10 export permits were denied out of over 7,000 applications. Reports over the past year have indicated that Canadian sales of military-related equipment have increased to countries with poor human rights records.

It is time for the federal government to step up. I am pleased to say that the response to my colleague, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, has been the same as the response to me on this issue, in terms of the Liberals' attitude to the arms trade deal.

Over 30,000 people have signed an Avaaz petition since last Friday asking the Liberals to fix this bill. The petition reads:

As a concerned Canadian, I strongly urge you to pass an arms bill that will stop exports to any party involved in human rights violations, and to close the crazy loophole with US arms exports. It's unacceptable for Canadians to have zero visibility into where our weapons end up and we urge you to ensure that bill C-47 addresses that.

As I mentioned, in my almost 10 years in this place, the most responses I have ever received from my constituents have been those opposing the sale of the LAVs to Saudi Arabia. There we are: Canadians are not happy with the approach the government is taking.

Therefore, while we welcome the decision by the government to move forward and to become a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty, we are deeply troubled at the approach it is taking because, frankly, it is not living up to the treaty.

When the Liberal government announced that Canada would finally accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, my colleagues and I, particularly my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, were thrilled. Of course, my former colleague, Paul Dewar, was outspoken on this for all of the years he was in the House of Commons.

Sadly, instead, Bill C-47 is one more broken Liberal promise. They are not, in fact, taking the action necessary to actually implement in Canada, into Canadian law, the full Arms Trade Treaty. As many people have said, they make a mockery of the Arms Trade Treaty.

The first derogation from this treaty is a massive one, in that the bill does not cover any of our exports to the United States. We do not know the exact percentage, and I will tell my colleagues why in a minute, but well over 50% of our arms exports are to the United States. We do not know the actual percentage because those exports are not tracked, and not even reported. Thus, we have no idea how many of our arms are being sold to the United States. This is important because we exclude from this bill any arms that are manufactured by a Canadian manufacturer here in Canada, but sold by another nation. That is, in fact, what has been going on with Canadian manufacturers of arms for export. They simply sell them to an American entity or a similar entity they have incorporated in the United States, and those in turn sell them to foreign entities who are major human rights violators. This is all the more important now as President Trump is lowering the bar for export to countries that are serious human rights violators.

Members here will recall the proposed sale of helicopters to the Government of the Philippines. They will remember that the president of the Philippines had boasted about throwing a man from a helicopter and that he would do it again. However, there are reports the company in question now plans to send helicopter parts to the United States, assemble them there, and then send them to the Philippines. Clearly, that is a cannon hole we are shooting through this arms treaty. It violates the letter and spirit of the Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty calls for universal adherence. That means that Canada should have laws in place that prohibit any sale by Canadian corporations to nations that are major human rights violators.

The second derogation is that in some cases in Canada an export permit is not even needed. Agreements between the defence department or with the Canadian Commercial Corporation do not require a permit, and they are free to sell to whoever they want. Those are also exempted from this bill.

What does Bill C-47 do to solve the problem? It does next to nothing, because Canadian corporations that are major arms manufacturers and traders have already figured out how to get around this, and the Liberal government is enabling that with this bill before us right now.

There was the infamous case of the light armoured vehicles, LAVs, sold by a Canadian manufacturer to Saudi Arabia. Despite clear reports of human rights violations, the current government refused to even investigate the sale. First, it suggested that the deal had already been completed by the Conservatives. Then it denied that there was any real evidence of the nefarious use of the LAVs by Saudi Arabia. Then, when the reports became so clear that there were in fact human rights violations going on with those very LAVS, it investigated, but again denied there was proof of human rights violations enabled by the use of Canadian LAVs.

There is also the embarrassing case of a UN report of a Canadian company selling 170 armed vehicles to support the brutal civil war in South Sudan. I just sat through a briefing by Global Affairs officials advising us of all the aid that Canada is giving to a number of African nations, including South Sudan, because of this brutal war. Human rights observers, including UN experts, have documented how South Sudan's army has engaged in massacres, rapes, looting, arbitrary arrests, and a scorched-earth strategy against civilians since the war erupted. Tens of thousands have died in the violence since then, making it one of the world's bloodiest conflicts. A UN expert panel said in a report submitted to the Security Council that the armoured vehicles sold to South Sudan were manufactured by the Canadian-owned Streit Group at a factory in the United Arab Emirates. The company simply takes the parts, has them put together in another nation, and then sells them to these human rights violators. It is absolutely absurd for Canada to be saying that we should be imposing sanctions on South Sudan and pouring in dollars to deal with the human rights abuses when in fact we are putting in place a law that would enable Canadian manufacturers to sell the very arms that are causing the atrocities in South Sudan.

In closing, we have heard from tens of thousands of Canadians who are absolutely opposed to the direction the government is taking. It is an international embarrassment. If the government wants to be on the Security Council, it should take back its bill, revise it, and make it consistent with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Export and Import Permits ActGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, when this bill was studied at committee, we heard many different criticisms by different groups for different reasons. I think we can see a certain relationship between the criticisms, on the one hand, that this bill is targeting people it should not be targeting, namely law-abiding firearms owners, and on the other hand, its preservation of the fundamental structure of our existing system, one in which decisions about arms sales are ultimately discretionary.

When we had public servants before the committee, I asked specifically about a recent arms deal, the one with Azerbaijan, because I know it is of concern to many in the Canadian Armenian community because of the reality of an ongoing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Artsakh region. There were border clashes recently, which most people agree were started on the Azeri side and that resulted in many people being killed. We posed those questions, and we were told at committee that this was a matter of commercial confidence, so we could not even get an explanation about that.

Although we might disagree on the particulars of some of these arms sales, surely we should be able to get answer to questions, especially when these questions are not about commercial particulars but about regional peace and stability in the region and how an arms sale might affect that? At the same time, does the member agree with us that this bill inappropriately targets responsible firearms owners in Canada by including things like small arms that could be used for sport and hunting.