Garnett Genuis

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, obviously Canadians, rural Canadians as well as urban Canadians, had many concerns about the long-gun registry. Some of it was the cost factor. There was a massive cost overrun. There was also the level of suspicion with which firearms owners are continually treated.

That is why I thought it was important in my speech today to emphasize that firearms owners do not look like a lot of the stereotypes. A lot of people who do not know firearms owners, or maybe do not know that they know firearms owners, have ideas that come from media and movies about what guns are used for, without understanding and appreciating the cultural significance, the recreational significance, and the family significance for many people. The long-gun registry and the way the government continues to approach these issues just demonstrate that the Liberals are out of touch with that experience of very many Canadians.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I said during my speech that I share the intention of combatting the illicit sale of arms and addressing human rights issues that were raised by this member, the member for Kitchener Centre, and others. However, the reality is that Canada already has an extremely strong system of arms control that, for its practical effects, exceeds what is being proposed under the Arms Trade Treaty.

Again there is this dissonance, in a way, coming from the government. Some government members are saying, “Do not worry; it does not change anything”, while others are saying, “No, this is really important.” Which is it?

We think it would not help in dealing with the international illicit arms trade, because we already have the mechanisms and provisions in place. However, some of the changes we talked about would have an impact with respect to responsible domestic gun owners and the added red tape that would come with this legislation. It is for those reasons that we oppose the bill.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly share the full video and record with my constituent, and he may be contacting that member's office directly with some follow-up thoughts.

However, if I can respond for the time being, the member spoke about the goal of the treaty, and this is exactly the point. With respect to foreign policy, we hear government members repeatedly saying, “our goal”, “our intention”, and “Here is what we are trying to do.” That is all well and good, but we are going to hold them accountable on the basis of what the government is actually doing, not its intentions. Our job is to look at the details and to challenge the government on action, not just on intention. That is what the government will be held accountable for, because that is what affects people on the ground. It is not the intentions of the government that affect people on the ground; it is the actions of the government.

I spoke in my speech about how the changes to the tracking and retention of records are the basis for significant concern from firearms owners and from stakeholders who represent firearms owners. The government would have us believe that they are all wrong to be concerned. However, we are going to listen to the firearms owners community when they highlight the fact that we already have a very strong system of arms control that, in its practical effects, exceeds what is proposed under this treaty, and that this treaty would meaningfully change things that are relevant to their lives.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-47, a bill that implements an international arms control treaty. It is fascinating listening to the members from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and Kitchener Centre on the government side. We heard so much about the government's intentions. They said that the bill intends to do this and that, and that the government does not intend to cause any problems for law-abiding firearms owners but to address arms control internationally. It lays bare a fundamental difference in the foreign policy approach of the official opposition and the government, which is that the government is always chasing an optic, in general, but especially when it comes to our foreign policy, without looking at the details.

My colleagues on this side of the House have very ably laid out the practical problems with this legislation and the practical reality that we already have a strong system of arms control in this country that achieves the stated objective. The government members barely engaged in a discussion on this point. Instead, we heard them laud their own intentions.

Let me tell the members opposite that on many of these issues, we have the same intentions, but we have read the bill and looked at the treaty and have heard specific concerns from our communities about its substance, especially insofar as we already have a strong system in place.

We oppose the bill on the grounds that it complicates existing arms control mechanisms that are working very well at present, and that in the process, it introduces substantial problems for responsible law-abiding Canadian firearms owners. I want to start by talking about some of those core substantive issues in terms of existing and proposed new arms control measures and then talk specifically about what I am hearing from firearms owners in my riding about the way the government is treating them.

On the substantive side, Canada already has a strong and effective system of arms control that, in practical effect, exceeds the system proposed by the UN treaty. It includes the Trade Controls Bureau, through which the responsible minister prevents us supplying military equipment to countries where those exports might threaten Canadian security or be used in an internal or external conflict in general. I should say that it is supposed to do that depending on the decision the minister makes. It includes provisions that allow a complete ban on trade with high-risk countries. Under the present system, the Canada Border Services Agency and Statistics Canada collect all such information on goods exported from Canada.

Therefore, we are already doing exactly what we need to do and are meeting the objectives laid out by the member for Kitchener Centre. We are already doing those things, keeping weapons from bad actors and out of dangerous situations and, in any event, certainly tracking our exports.

Some might argue that signing on to this UN treaty is important to align Canada with other nations. One of the members opposite mentioned the nations that had initially signed on to it, but if we look at the actual ratification record of countries, we note that the countries accounting for a majority of the sales of military equipment have not signed on to it, so this treaty is not at all establishing an effective international regime that we can align with.

We already do arms control and do it well, so at best, Bill C-47 is a solution in search of a problem. Paradoxically that was the defence of it by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He told us that it is not really changing anything anyway, which is at odds with what the member for Kitchener Centre said. The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell told us that it is not changing anything, but the member for Kitchener Centre told us it is going to save the world. It is one or the other. Maybe it is somewhere in-between. Probably, based on our evidence, it is making things worse.

At best, if we take the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell at his word, it is a solution in search of a problem. However, our contention is that it is worse than that, because the treaty fails to recognize the legitimacy of lawful firearms ownership and creates all sorts of unnecessary problems and red tape for responsible firearms owners. Most critically, it effectively recreates the federal gun registry by requiring the tracking of all imported and exported firearms and requires that this 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 concern about the implications of this. They want a strong system of arms control, but they point out that in fact we already have one.

Beyond that, firearms owners are generally frustrated by a constantly shifting classification system that does not provide any meaningful certainty to law-abiding gun owners. A gun could be legal today and illegal tomorrow, without even the due process of an order in council.

I also want to make some points in general about the government's approach to firearms owners.

I know that many people in the House have certain ideas about who gun owners are. These presumptions or stereotypes lead the government to dismiss the legitimate concerns and suggestions of people from the firearms owning community. When everything we know about a particular community comes from movies and media, we are perhaps liable to come to incorrect conclusions.

I ask the government to pause and look again and to listen to the many law-abiding firearms owners in this country. Most people who own guns are not like Al Capone or even James Bond. They are scrupulously careful with their firearms and use them for recreation and, perhaps, to hunt responsibly for food.

The responsible use of firearms can be something around which people build community. Just like some of us get together over drinks or to play sports, some Canadians enjoy spending time with their families and friends at the range or out hunting. For some people, guns are also an important part of their family history. In these cases, making it harder for people to possess their guns means we are trying to take away people's valuable family heirlooms.

I ask the government to think about these gun owners, people whom we might not have met but who do not deserve to be judged on the basis of uninformed stereotypes. Liberals, who supposedly champion diversity and openness to experience, should be open to learning about the legitimate aspirations of firearms owners, aspirations that can be effectively and responsibly integrated with a commitment to public safety.

With that in mind, in the remaining time I have, I will read at some length an essay written by one of my constituents who is a firearms owners. He asked that I share this anonymously. He writes the following:

I am the gun owner that is a loving husband and father, I raised great kids and still love my high school sweetheart 27 years later.

I am the gun owner that deplores violence, I respect the police and the law. I fly a Canadian flag in my yard.

I am the gun owner that is a sports coach, a community leader, an involved parent, and the father that booked off work for all those field trips with our kids when others were busy.

I am that gun owner that stopped on that icy highway and brought your wife and child to safety from their stuck car on a cold night....

I am that gun owner that has a successful business, employs people with good jobs and fair wages. I am the gun owner that ensures respect, fairness and proper treatment of people, I speak out against harassment and racism.

I am that gun owner that believes firearms safety and training are paramount to have a successful firearms policy in our country.

I am the gun owner that stores his firearms properly and safely, respects the privilege of owning firearms, and is a respected and committed member of the community, that cares deeply about the safety of your children and mine.

I am the gun owner that lives on your street, down the alley or at the end of the block, I am the one that waves, pushes your car when you are stuck, and my kids and I are the ones that shovelled those neighbors driveways when they needed help, someone passed away or a neighbour fell ill.

I am the gun owner that has firearms for sports shooting and hunting and recreation, my firearms have been passed from generation to generation, my firearms are of all types and many are well over a hundred years old, they have never been used in anger or against another. They are my family history, heirlooms and always used safely and with respect for my family, neighbors and friends. Many belonged to my great-grandfather, grandfather and father....

I am the gun owner who is proud, and enjoys the wonderful people I have met in the firearms community, my dear friends they have become, they are good people worthy of my friendship.

I am the gun owner, that should not be blamed for gang violence, smuggled and stolen firearms, failed public policy not holding criminals responsible for their actions, or drugs in our community. I am responsible for none of these things. But if I was the Public Safety Minister, I would take real action against these plagues on our communities.

I am the gun owner that believes the Government should focus on passing legislation like Wynn's Law, that would make criminal history mandatory at bail hearing's so that if suspects are released into our communities, the Justice releasing them is aware of the risks to our families, our communities and our police officers....

I am the gun owner that requests your support for our heritage sport, target shooting, responsible and ethical hunting practices and acceptance that the two million plus Canadian gun owners are your friends, neighbours and the people who help make caring communities up.

I am the gun owner that recently had his 10/22 magazines status changed to prohibited by this government, effectively making farmers, sports shooters and good Canadians into criminals without notice, without cause or justification. Many who are unaware now face incarceration and don't even know it. If the Liberals are going to turn law abiding citizens into criminals they should at least communicate this to the citizens. I will do my best to let everyone I can know about their actions.

I am the gun owner who will not be silent anymore. I will be politically active, I will speak up, I will endorse the right candidates to speak for my community, I will speak to factual evidence....

I am that Gun Owner.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share that on behalf of my constituents, and to oppose to bill.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell basically say there's nothing to see here, that we have a system of arms control in place and this doesn't really change anything. Then we heard the member for Kitchener Centre say how this treaty would change the world and save children facing terrible situations around the world. I wonder which of those it is.

The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was right to point out that we already have a strong systems of arms control in place and that, substantively, this would not actually do anything to address some of the situations the member spoke about. What it would do is to create new obligations on firearms owners in Canada, obligations that in no way inform the Arms Trade Treaty. I would be on board for something that actually made a difference, but too often what we hear from the government is its intentions, but not enough about what the actual implications of the legislation would be.

[Export and Import Permits Act, September 28th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is a sensitive issue in my colleague's riding because there are many law-abiding, responsible gun owners living in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The member says that nothing is wrong, that there is nothing to see here as a problem, but the major firearms organizations that represent firearms owners in Canada do have major concerns. At first blush, who should we believe, those organizations or the member?

He said we already have a strong system of arms control and this new legislation would not involve any new obligations for anybody. That effectively is what he said. If that is true, then why in the world are we even moving forward with this? Why would we not accept the existing system? What is the point if all of these things already exist anyway?

Could my colleague tell me, first, why we should not listen to firearms organizations, and second, if what he says is true, what is the point?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question I asked an NDP member earlier and get her thoughts. It is the question of the ability of the international community in general to respond to the issue of genocide. She spoke about the very clear early-warning signs, signs of things already happening much before this point, yet we see with human rights crises around the world—the situation in Syria and the situation in Burma are two contemporary examples—that it seems that the United Nations has not had the capacity to respond effectively.

I would be curious to hear her thoughts on, first, what kinds of reforms to the United Nations should be proposed to make that body effective in responding to these issues, and second, how we can change the architecture of the response to these kinds of events so that we can say, “Never again,” and actually mean never again and actually action it, not just as a slogan but as a concrete reality.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been very active in the context of the genocide prevention parliamentary group. These are issues he follows closely.

He mentioned this not becoming a failure of the international system. I would argue, quite frankly, that it is already, to a substantial extent, a failure of the international system. It is not that we cannot act now, but up to this point, it has already been a failure in that so many people have been adversely affected.

Speaking on the broader question of genocide prevention, this is something that has been a long time coming, the removal of citizenship and the denial of the legitimacy of a people to be in their homeland, a place they are indigenous to. There has been this gradual incremental escalation. We should have seen this coming. This is an issue that has been raised in the House for over a year and a half. Specific actions were asked of the government in the spring that were not taken then. Some of those actions have been taken now, in the fall, in light of this stage of the escalation.

How do we act differently in terms of responding faster to these kinds of problems? I especially note that the Canadian ambassador has been to Rakhine, but I have raised in the past in the House that the public comments after those visits have not at all emphasized the urgency of the problem. They have referred to inter-communal violence leading to displacement, but they have not at all pointed the finger where the finger needs to be pointed. How do we get the Canadian government, other governments around the world, and the international institutions to actually notice those warning signs and act earlier, before these situations have already reached what is effectively a crisis point? It is very difficult to act fast enough if we only start at that crisis point.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there have been a few back-and-forths on the issue of engagement through the United Nations. I was in New York last week for the UN General Assembly and, yes, I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of the Rohingya. However, there was also a lot of discussion in the meetings I was in about the question of UN reform, with people noting that we see these atrocities and there does not seem to be the capacity to respond through the Security Council and other bodies of the UN. Different people had different solutions for that problem, but if we look at what has happened in Syria, what is happening in Burma, and what is happening in other places, it becomes clear that the proof is in the pudding and that we need to look for other ways of responding. Here I think that part of the solution is UN reform.

I would be curious about the member's thoughts on what we can do to promote changes in the United Nations that would increase that body's effectiveness when it comes to responding to emerging cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly respond to a fairly partisan comment from another member earlier. The previous prime minister spoke at the United Nations more than many prime ministers before him, and he always raised issues of foreign policy, including issues of development assistance and fundamental human rights. We wish the present Prime Minister had taken the opportunity to raise the issue of the Rohingya in his UN speech.

I want to ask the member about the question of capacity within government to respond to these things.

My colleague spoke earlier about the Office of Religious Freedom. A new office was created called the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. It is not clear to me exactly what its mandate is.

Perhaps the member does not know the detail on this, but if he does, could he tell me if this office has been engaged with this issue? Has it been speaking out about this issue? Has it been working on projects on the ground? If not, what capacity exists within the government to effectively respond to these issues in a way that ensures the government is kept up to date and is aware of all the detail? Is a lack of capacity a possible reason why it has taken too long for there to be a response?