House of Commons Hansard #311 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was export.
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
moved that 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), be read the third time and passed.
Matt DeCourcey LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here today to speak to Bill C-47. Through this bill, our government will move forward on an important commitment we made to ensure that Canada finally accedes to the Arms Trade Treaty.
I am sure that everybody in the chamber will agree with me in saying that all countries have an obligation to take action against the violence that is fuelled by the illicit trade in conventional weapons.
The ATT is the first international treaty that seeks to tackle this illicit trade and, in doing so, take steps against the violence that this trade perpetuates. The ATT sets an essential standard for the international community. In doing so, it seeks to contribute to international and regional peace, security, and stability. It seeks to reduce human suffering and promote co-operation, transparency, and responsible action by countries.
It is due time that Canada join our partners and allies in our accession to the treaty.
I am also proud of the amendments that the foreign affairs committee has made to strengthen the bill. Our government heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the ATT criteria placed directly into the legislation, including the considerations of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence, and we supported the committee in making these changes. The criteria for applications to export arms from Canada will now be embedded directly into Canadian law.
I am proud to point out that we also made sure to include the consideration of gender-based violence or violence against women and children as a fifth key criterion in this legislation.
We have also made a significant change to the legislation by including a substantial risk test in what is now being proposed. This means that, for the first time, there would be a direct legal requirement for the government to refuse export permits for items where there is a substantial risk that they would be used to violate the criteria.
Bill C-47 would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, allow Canada to meet its international obligations, and, significantly, ensure that Canada holds itself to a higher standard in the export of arms.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said before the foreign affairs committee in February, it is long overdue that Canada join many of its NATO and G7 partners by acceding to the ATT. We have heard support for the Arms Trade Treaty from civil society, from non-governmental organizations, and from Canadians. We also heard the clear desire to do better and to be ambitious in our strengthening of Bill C-47.
Originally, we had planned to place the criteria by which exports are judged, including human rights, into regulation, but we heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the Arms Trade Treaty criteria placed directly into legislation. Once again, let me reiterate that this would include the consideration of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence.
Going further than that, the bill now includes a substantial risk clause. Such a clause would mean that Canada would not allow the export of arms if there was a substantial risk that they would be used to commit human rights violations. This is a significant decision. It would mean changes in how Canada regulates selling weapons. This is the most significant change to how Canada evaluates the export of military goods in over 30 years. It is simply the right thing to do.
The Arms Trade Treaty is the result of growing international concern about the direct and indirect consequences of the global arms trade, which perpetuates conflicts that violate human rights and hinder development. We must provide constructive, rules-based leadership on the international stage and with our partners to promote peace, security, and prosperity around the world.
The Arms Trade Treaty recognizes the right of states to engage in the legitimate and responsible trade of arms. It requires that those weapons be exported responsibly. It is aimed at ensuring that individual states have an effective export control system in place to regulate the legitimate arms trade while, at the same time, using transparency measures to combat illicit trade. It requires all its state parties to adhere to a high standard when assessing the export of conventional weapons to ensure that they are not used to commit human rights abuses, violate international humanitarian law, or contribute to international terrorism or organized crime.
It is important to note that the ATT does not require its member states to automatically halt all exports to countries with challenging geopolitical or security situations. Rather, states must assess the risk of an individual export and consider options to mitigate potential risk. In other words, states must apply due diligence in considering exports and weigh both the risks and the benefits of specific exports of conventional arms.
It is also important to note that, despite some claims to the contrary, the ATT does not and will not affect domestic ownership of firearms. This principle is even enshrined in the preamble of the treaty, which recognizes “the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law”.
Bill C-47 does not affect domestic gun controls. Bill C-47 does not create a gun registry. Despite this reality, the Conservatives are trying to fearmonger and make things up, which I am not surprised they are doing. They have put forward a motion that ignores the reality of Bill C-47.
As I noted, our government is committed to returning Canada to its rightful place among global leaders in promoting responsible arms trade. It is shameful that Canada has not already become party to the ATT. We are alone among NATO allies, G7 partners, and even the OECD states in not having signed or ratified the treaty. Canadians want better of their government. They expect us to participate in multilateral efforts to ensure that any transfers of conventional arms are done responsibly.
Bill C-47 sets a high standard that lives up to the letter and the spirit of the ATT and reflects the leadership role that Canadians expect Canada to play in this most important area.
The ATT also specifically requires that states assess their exports against the risk to peace, security, and human rights, as well as against the risk of violence and gender-based violence. That is an important issue to consider in modern-day export assessments, but one that was not officially taken into account 10 or 20 years ago.
Our government intends to have Canada go even further than required by the ATT with regard to gender-based violence and violence against women and children. We are therefore proposing that exports not only be assessed against the risk that such horrible situations could occur, but also, unlike the ATT itself, against the same standards that are used for all of the other ATT considerations. That means that gender-based violence and violence against women and children will also be subject to the substantial risk clause.
A second major step for Canada's accession to the ATT will be to ensure that we meet the requirements of article 10, which requires each state to regulate brokering. Brokering involves arranging the transfer of arms between a second and a third country. Brokering itself is not a crime, and responsible arms brokers can play a legitimate role in arranging and facilitating sales. However, there have also been far too many cases of unscrupulous arms brokers putting profit ahead of human lives. Transactions facilitated by these brokers have seen weapons transferred to conflict zones, even zones under UN arms embargoes, or to terrorists and criminal gangs. Nevertheless, Canada is coming late to regulating brokering. Almost all of our close partners regulate this activity. We seek to bring Canada up to speed.
However, Canada cannot deal with the risks of the unregulated or irresponsible arms trade alone. If we want to guarantee that the ATT will be successful, we need to make sure that it is adopted and implemented effectively by as many states as possible. This is why our government contributed $1 million to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation. This fund provides direct assistance to help states accede to the ATT and fulfill their obligations by strengthening their export controls. Canada's accession to the ATT will help us collaborate more effectively with our international partners to counter the negative effects of conventional weapons in conflict zones.
We have also developed a partnership with international NGO Small Arms Survey to combat the flow of illegal arms in the Lybia-Chad-Sudan triangle. The results of the survey will help Canada implement concrete follow-up measures to reduce the flow of illicit weapons through the channels identified by the NGO and make a real contribution to the everyday lives of those in the region who live under the threat of conventional weapons.
I would like to make a final point about Bill C-47 and the Arms Trade Treaty. Some have criticized this bill for not going far enough or have taken issue with certain parts of it. I do not agree. We have gone back to the drawing board numerous times to accept amendments and challenge ourselves to make it stronger each and every time. That being the case, I try to understand where these perspectives come from. Just the same, I would encourage those persons, including some members of the House, not to lose sight of the forest for the trees. The objective of the Arms Trade Treaty is to “[p]revent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion”. Canada should and must play a role in combatting this diversion and the violence it creates. Let us not lose sight of the real aim of the Arms Trade Treaty.
The aim of this legislation is not to end the defence industry, as we may infer from the comments of some of the members opposite throughout debate in the House and at committee. This industry is integral to our economy and key in supplying our own military. Whether or not some members of the House think the changes to Canada's arms export system go far enough, we should not ignore the fact that including the ATT criteria in legislation and creating a new and legally binding substantial risk clause are the most significant changes to how Canada evaluates the export of arms in over 30 years.
We need to work together to ensure that Canada can join the Arms Trade Treaty. Our allies all did it years ago. This is our collective duty. Let us not cut off our nose to spite our face. Let us be proud of the changes brought forth in Bill C-47.
Let me close by saying that I firmly believe that Canada can once again take a leadership role on this issue in joining the ATT. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support this bill.
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of disagreement here about the continual claim by the other side that we are fearmongering when we disagree with it, or when we have a better viewpoint on what we aim to get out of such laws or regulations.
During testimony, I asked a very prominent witness whether the bill was a step forward or backward. The answer was that it was not a step backward, but for sure not a step forward either.
I would like my colleague on the other side to comment on that very important testimony, which tells us that the bill would not do much. Actually, it is a step backward compared to our current act that was established in Canada in 1947.
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the bill is not one step forward, but in fact two steps forward.
The bill would do two important things to strengthen what is already a rather robust arms export system in Canada. First of all, it would place criteria on decisions to allow export of certain arms. It places those criteria into legislation, making a new legally binding component to any decision made by this or any future government on how it permits the export of arms. Second, it would also create that same framework around the brokering of arms. We have not been able to regulate third parties brokering the sale of arms into conflict zones.
For those two reasons, the bill create two steps forward in strengthening our arms export system.
I would reiterate that this in no way would affect the lawful use of guns and firearms in Canada. We heard that said in testimony numerous times by witnesses across civil society. We were even able to satisfy lawful gun owners with the insertion of a “for greater certainty” clause in Bill C-47. Therefore, Canadians should know that this would in no way affect domestic gun ownership in Canada.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would say it is more like half a step or maybe a quarter step.
The NDP completely agrees. We have been pressing the government to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty for years, and now the government is not even half acceding, maybe a third or so. There are still loopholes in this bill that place it in direct and open conflict with the Arms Trade Treaty, such as the refusal to reassess export permits should new information be revealed. That seems pretty basic to me, and it is in the treaty. The U.S. exemption is also a problem because no licensing is required, no information is available, there is no tracking, nothing.
Some people on the government side are awfully pleased with themselves in their assertion that the experts support their approach. The truth is that, even with minor improvements, experts are still against the bill at this time. That is why, in recent days, 33,000 Canadians have written to the minister to complain about the fact that the bill does not address arms exports to the United States or transfers from there to other countries.
Will the government listen to the 33,000 people who took the time to sign the petition, as well as to the experts, take this bill off the table, and send it back to the drawing board?
We are prepared to work with the government to draft a proper bill that will not undermine the Arms Trade Treaty.
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to address a few of the points raised by my hon. colleague. I appreciate all the work she has done at committee to improve this bill.
Experts agree with our government that it is time for Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. I know our point of view is not at all consistent with that of the NDP, but it is a shame to see the members of that party rising in the House and voting against this bill, which will allow Canada to accede to this important treaty.
The member opposite also mentioned the fact that the minister should be required to reassess permits if the situation changes in a given country. The minister already has the ability to do so, and one such example was made public earlier this year for everyone to see.
Lastly, has the member across the aisle asked her colleague from London—Fanshawe if she agrees that we should let arms exports continue to Saudi Arabia? Does the NDP now oppose an export that it supported during the 2015 election?
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, we know that Bill C-47 formalizes the accountability process by which export permits are considered, and includes the factors to be considered, as set out in article 7 of the treaty. Could I have the parliamentary secretary's comments on why formalizing this process is important, and perhaps he could also address some of the factors that are taken into account?
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, certainly for years Canada has had a robust export control system in which considerations were supposed to be taken by the minister and the government responsible before issuing any export permits. We are now creating a legally binding requirement for the government to consider certain criteria when evaluating an export permit, including considerations like whether the arms could be sold or diverted to an area where they could cause grave atrocities, contravene international humanitarian law and individuals' human rights, and be used to perpetuate gender-based and sexual violence.
We are creating a legally binding requirement that not only our current minister and government must take into consideration, but also all future governments. We are also applying that legally binding requirement to the brokering of arms and creating a new higher, substantial risk test to make sure that all of those considerations are taken into account before we sign any export permit for the sale of conventional arms.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the intent of this bill is to plug the hole where Canadian arms were getting into places where there was conflict and causing human rights issues.
I do not exactly understand the mechanism, As I see it, in 2014, out of the 7,000 permits that came through, only 10 of them were rejected. Therefore, what exactly is being done to get traceability on manufactured parts and equipment to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands?
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Mr. Speaker, Canada has quite a robust export control system that tracks the sale of arms and what happens with them when they are delivered abroad.
To address the question of my hon. colleague, this bill allows us to work with the international community in our accession to the Arms Trade Treaty to create a more robust control and reporting system internationally, and to raise the capacity of other countries up to the standard that Canada has had for many years, albeit lacking just a few small pieces, the two small steps I mentioned to her colleague.
This is an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role in working with the international community and those who want to strengthen the capacity of other countries that do not have as strong an export control system as Canada does.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by reminding the House of certain facts, to counteract the falsehoods spread by some government representatives over the last few days. For example, they claim we are opposed to Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. It may be trendy to spread fake news, but these people know full well that what they say is not true. We have always supported Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. In fact, we have been pushing for it for years. However, we want to do it properly. We want to accede to the entire treaty, not just half or a third. The bill before us does not do that. I want to read out part of an email I just received from Project Ploughshares, which is probably the best-known arms control organization in Canada. The email says:
“Last day of debate on Bill C-47 for Canada to join the Arms Trade Treaty.”
I would really like my colleagues across the aisle to pay attention to this:
“Do not confuse merits of the ATT with merits of the Bill.”
The email goes on to say:
“Big shortcomings remain in export controls, eg loophole re exports to US.”
We support the Arms Trade Treaty, but because of these big shortcomings, we cannot support the bill to implement the treaty. That is why I cannot support it, the NDP cannot support it, and experts cannot support it. Experts have expressed satisfaction with the few changes that the government accepted, but as of today, they still oppose the bill. That is why 33,000 people wrote to the minister to ask that this bill be withdrawn and replaced with a better one that includes and covers our exports to the United States.
When people from the government spread falsehoods, I am usually patient, but this makes me really mad. These people should be ashamed of themselves. They say that the New Democrats are opposing the accession to the ATT. That is a bit rich. It is the NDP that has been pushing for years for Canada to accede to the ATT, but we want to do it well and completely, not as a half-baked measure. Bill C-47 would not do that well. It does not reflect the letter or the spirit of the treaty and it may weaken the treaty. That is why I cannot support it. That is why, as I said above, experts in arms control, as of today, still oppose Bill C-47 and why 33,000 Canadian citizens wrote to the minister and asked her to fix the bill.
The Liberals are twisting the facts. By doing so, they are disrespecting the experts. What are the main problems? Since I know my time is running out, I will sum them up very briefly. First, there is the issue of exports to the United States. More than half of our exports go to the United States.
When I say that more than half of our arms exports go to the United States, we do not even know if it is 52% or maybe 57%. Who knows, it could be 62%. Why? It is because we have absolutely no information on those arms exports to the U.S. With this bill, not only will our arms exports to the U.S. not be covered, but even when we asked for the small step of reporting to Parliament about those exports, the Liberals refused. There is no transparency at all, no willingness to give Parliament, this House, some sort of power to oversee the sometimes very troubling issue of our arms exports.
We will remember that twice we have tried to create a committee that could provide oversight of our arms exports, and twice the Liberals have turned it down. Why does it matter? It is a matter of principle, transparency, and democracy. It matters also because under the Trump administration, the Americans are lowering their standards for arms exports. We have seen, for example, that some Canadian equipment goes to the United States and then becomes part of shipments that go to countries like Nigeria. We have cut our arms sales to Nigeria, but now Canadian arms are finding their way to Nigeria through that loophole. I have a problem calling it a loophole, because it is so huge. It is like a doughnut with a large three-foot hole in the middle. It is amazing. They say, “Oh yes, we are acceding to the treaty.” No, I am sorry, we are not acceding to the treaty. We are just putting our big toe in the water, and not more than that. This is a huge hole.
A few weeks ago, there was a big story about a sale of helicopters to the Philippines. They were going to the Philippines without requiring an export permit. How interesting, selling helicopters to the army of a president who boasted that he had once thrown someone out of a helicopter and was ready to do it again. Why did it not need an export permit? It did not need one because the deal was organized through an agreement with the Department of National Defence and a Canadian commercial corporation, and it was deemed that helicopters are not military equipment, so it just went through. It created a hoopla. Of course, Canadians were upset by that. What we are learning now is that the company is planning to send the helicopters to the U.S., and then they will go on to the Philippines. There is no control over end-users.
The bill would not cover all of government, because the bill would make amendments to the Import and Export Permits Act, and the Canadian crown corporation is not covered by that act, as officials have told us.
Then we have the issue of reviewing permits in the event of new developments. That is in the treaty, so why does the government not want to include it in the legislation? I do not get it.
When new information comes to light and when new developments arise, the government should make it its duty to review the permits that have been granted. I could go on about this for hours. In fact, I probably have talked about this for hours over the past few weeks. I invite everyone to read my blog on the issue and my Twitter account, where I am very active.
I described all these shortcomings in this bill and talked about what a bad bill it is. More to the point, experts have described this as a bad bill that is full of holes.
My final concern is about countries that claim they are complying with a treaty, but in fact are only doing it halfheartedly and badly so. That weakens the treaty for the rest of the world. As a result, other countries may well decide to follow suit. What Canada is in the process of doing is complying with a small part of the treaty, but mostly it is undermining it. That is not going to happen on my watch, and that is why I will be moving a motion.
I move, seconded by the member for Victoria:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“this House decline to give third reading to 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), because it:
a) doesn't require the Minister of Foreign Affairs to reassess existing export permits should new information about human rights abuses be revealed post-export;
b) does not allow for exports of military goods to the United States to be licensed, tracked, or reported back to Canadians in any way;
c) goes against the spirit and the letter of the Arms Trade Treaty.”
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my hon. colleague, but I am tremendously disappointed to hear that she is trying to block this legislation from moving ahead to third reading.
Let us be clear. The Arms Trade Treaty, all of the Arms Trade Treaty, once Canada accedes to it, is legally binding on Canada, both under international law and under Canadian law. However, to do that, we need Bill C-47 to pass, because this is the enabling legislation that is a precondition to Canada acceding to the treaty.
There are child soldiers, and women who are being raped, and human rights defenders, and all of these people around the world who do not want to wait anymore. This delay by my hon. colleague is actually going to cost a lot of people around the world.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. Is it not true that we need this bill to accede to the treaty, and once we accede to the treaty, it will be fully and completely legally binding on Canada?
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, she said fully binding on Canada.
If all elements of the treaty were fully binding on Canada, that would mean, to go back to two examples I gave, that the minister would have to review the export permits at the time the new information emerged. The Liberals are refusing to include this. It would also mean that there would be no discrimination, because at least the requirement to report on our exports to the U.S., which represent more than half our exports, would be included. We are not talking about a minor matter.
I would like to read to my colleague, who spoke about child soldiers, women dying, and all that, a quote from Control Arms, a very well-known organization and the driving force behind the Arms Treaty. If I recall correctly, this is what this organization asked when it spoke in Geneva last week. In speaking about Canada, the representatives said:
Also critical is ensuring that national implementation systems will ultimately be fully Treaty compliant at the time of accession. We note in this regard the example of Canada, which is currently working through the ATT accession process. While we welcome Canada's decision to become a State Party, we do have concerns with, for example, current plans to maintain a licensing and reporting exemption for transfer to Canada's largest trade partner—the United States. As the relevant legislation is still in draft form undergoing Parliamentary review, we hope that, rather than sprinting to accession, Canada can address this damaging loophole before becoming an ATT state party.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I see that there are a lot of countries that have not signed on to the treaty. I do not really understand the concerns they have and why they have not signed on. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on anything she knows about why other countries have not signed on to the treaty.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and also for her tenacity and professionalism when asking questions in the House despite the problems with her voice.
It is true that some countries have not signed on to the treaty. Very few countries have not signed it. The United States has signed it. They have not ratified it, but they have signed it. Unfortunately, in all such situations, there will always be countries that do not want to play by the rules. That is why I am so troubled by this bill. Canada is not really playing by the rules. When Canada is singled out in Geneva and told that it is not creating a good legislative measure, this means that it is not playing by the rules. It is making it look like it is acceding to the treaty, when in fact it is only doing so halfway. That is simply not right.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join others in saluting my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her tenacity and her long-standing support of the treaty as well as for pointing out the government's false narrative, if I can call it that, about the bill, the NDP's position on the bill, the position of those 33,000 people who provided their input on the bill, and the experts who agree that it is far from a good arrangement.
In her speech, the member talked about social media and Project Ploughshares, a well-known group, which suggested that one must distinguish between the treaty and Bill C-47. It has long supported the treaty, as has she, but it points out that “shortcomings” remain in the export controls, such as the loophole with respect to exports to the United States. That was the burden of the amendment by my colleague. I would ask her to elaborate on that so-called loophole.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I do not like calling it a loophole, because when a loophole covers almost half the treaty it becomes something else entirely. Perhaps someone has a better idea of what word we can use. “Gaping hole” is a good expression. These are just some of the points that experts raised from the outset. They mentioned this gaping hole with respect to our exports to the U.S. They brought up the problems with the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of Defence, and they said that existing permits should be reviewed in the event of new developments. If I recall correctly, they pointed out 10 things that need to be fixed in the bill.
The government finally agreed to fix a few things, but not the most important or biggest shortcomings. This is why everyone, aside from the people on the other side of the House, think this is a bad bill. If we truly want to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, we need to stay true to the treaty. We need to do it right.
Gabriel Ste-Marie Québec debout Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her remarks.
I would like to ask her if she thinks that what we are seeing in this bill is textbook Liberal government. Its tendency is to introduce a bill and telegraph appealing messaging about progressive values and improving society, but anyone who looks beneath the surface can see that business takes precedence over everything else. The same thing is happening with tax havens: the government is delivering all the right lines, but meanwhile, it keeps legalizing more and more tax havens. How about the fight against climate change? After parading around in Paris at COP21, the government is now making radical moves to extract even more dirty oil from the oil sands, which in no way helps address environmental issues.
Is that what we are seeing with Bill C-47 too?
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I could not agree more.
This is just more smoke and mirrors, more grandstanding. They say Canada is going to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, but they are taking on only a tiny part and ignoring large chunks of it. Similarly, the government claims to be feminist, yet it sells arms to Saudi Arabia. The government claims to be concerned about climate change, yet it buys old pipelines with plans to expand them. We have a government that talks about tax fairness, yet it signs new deals that actually facilitate tax evasion and gives special privileges, like “get out of jail free” cards in Monopoly, to the biggest tax evaders.
I agree, this is so typical of this government. I find it interesting, because these are important issues that really matter to all the parties. We realize that, and we hear the same old tune. Once again, the government spews all kinds of lofty rhetoric, but without any real action, and what little action it does take flies in the face of what it says.
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the people of Ontario for electing a new PC government yesterday. It was a great victory. I think they made the right choice by electing a government that can serve the people, first and foremost, and no one other than that.
I am pleased on this beautiful morning to talk about Bill C-47, a piece of legislation that does not achieve its stated purpose. I have spoken about the bill before. It is ineffective, unfair, and a step backward. I mean every word I say about the bill. The bill is a further example of the Liberals doing what they do best, chasing an optic while ignoring the tangible effects of their actions.
Canada has a robust and effective system of arms control that has served it well for decades and will continue to serve us for as long as we need. I called Bill C-47 a step backward, and I mean that quite literally. The system that we currently operate under meets or exceeds anything proposed by the UN treaty. It is a fact that our current protocol exceeds the requirements of the UN treaty contained in the bill before us.
I have the honour and pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. When we were studying the legislation, Amnesty International appeared as a witness to discuss the legislation. Their testimony was quite interesting. Indeed, we were able to gather very important things from the witnesses who appeared before committee. Amnesty International is a very trusted and well respected organization on the world stage and in Canada. We wanted to get its opinion on the difference between the proposed legislation and the current regime we already have in Canada. Alex Neve, the secretary general of Amnesty International told us on October 31, 2017, “in the critical aspects where we need strengthening, it is not a step forward”. If we are not making substantive progress, then why are we doing what we are doing?
We know that the United States, Russia, and other major countries making up the majority of the sales of military equipment have either not signed or likely will not ratify the treaty. As is the case with many ineffective international treaties, the key participants in the trade are not part of the treaty. We have a right to ask these questions before we adopt anything that comes our way, no matter where it comes from. The bill cannot be part of an effective international regime because we know that the Arms Trade Treaty is being ignored or boycotted by major players in the international arms trade. That is something we also have to pay attention to, because we are not the only player on the world stage, and we have to consider looking at those major players before we consider any law, or piece of legislation, or any treaty we have to agree to, because it means so much to Canada. We have to be very careful when considering what we are doing.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The hon. member will have 15 minutes coming his way when we resume debating Bill C-47.
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, La Malbaie is hosting a gathering of the most powerful people in the world, the G7. That is where senior officials meet with their thought masters to discuss the world to come. The discussion invariably focuses on the continuity of the prevailing ideology. Unbridled globalization of trade, neoliberal policies, and so forth are always on the agenda.
This world that they idealize under virtuous pretexts seeks only to keep taking more from those who work hard to carve out a decent life in order to keep giving to those who already have more than they need. It is time we started remembering those who are struggling. It is time we started thinking about who really needs our help. It is time we remembered that it is still possible to dream of a better world for our fellow citizens.
To quote Gérald Godin:
Do you remember, Godin
that we have to spend today dreaming
of what we will do tomorrow?
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour and congratulate Paul and Dion Oram of Glovertown in my riding.
On Wednesday, May 16, Paul, at age eight, returned to the Janeway Children's Hospital in St. John's to ring the bell of hope after five years cancer-free. There were other reasons to celebrate, too, as Paul and his father reached their goal of raising $50,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation.
When his father asked him what he wanted to do to celebrate his five-year anniversary, Paul told him that he wanted to give the gift of making five other children happy. They set the goal of raising $10,000 per wish. The family spent seven months raising funds, and they set up an online auction, which raised over $35,000.
I would like to congratulate Paul for being five years cancer-free and to thank him and his father for their contribution to the people in our community and our province.
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, we have the privilege of meeting people all across our great country. However, no matter where I have been, I have not met anyone with the passion, enthusiasm, or dedication to a community that can match that of Edmonton Manning's own Carol Quiring. Carol is always on the go, and I have been blessed to call her my friend. Sadly, earlier this year, Carol was diagnosed with ALS, a terrible disease for which there is no known cure.
Virtually everyone in the House has a personal story about ALS, and many have helped raise awareness and funds for research to find a cure for this deadly disease. While a cure has yet to be discovered, one drug, edaravone, has been found to slow progression by 33%. Unfortunately, this drug is not yet approved by Health Canada, and it is very difficult and expensive to obtain.
I hope that the Minister of Health can help speed up the approval of this drug, as I and many other Canadians have written to request.