Linda Duncan

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, who is putting forward that she is speaking on behalf of all in her riding, but the whole purpose and intent of the UNDRIP is to end this colonial regime. Essentially, it says that indigenous people, from this time forward, will have the right to make their own determinations on how they are governed and the development of their lands and resources and the impacts on their people.

It is a case of setting one first nation against another. I work very closely with the Fort McKay First Nation, the Mikisew Cree First Nation, and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, and as much as, yes, they want the right to participate in any development that impacts their lands and resources, some of which include oil and gas, they are also regularly in court against the Government of Alberta and the federal government, because their rights and interests are not being respected. First and foremost, that is what they see as their responsibility. They have the right, every indigenous community has the right, to self-determine. There is not a quota, nor can my party, the member's party, or the government of the day make that determination on behalf of indigenous peoples.

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the opposition tabled more than two dozen amendments to the government's impact assessment bill and the bill that would replace the National Energy Board. The member's government is refusing to incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a binding term. The Liberals are including section 35 of the Constitution. They claim to be in the 21st century, but in the 21st century, the world is recognizing a broader base of indigenous rights. Those are reflected in the UNDRIP, which the government claims to be supporting.

The Liberal members keep asking if the NDP does not respect those first nations who are saying they would like to get some compensation for the pipeline going through. They have never heard us speaking against that. The UNDRIP and section 35 say that every first nation has the right of self-determination, and that is what the current government does not seem to get. There is no quota on the UNDRIP.

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-262, which was passed by the majority in this place. My colleague's bill would now require that the government reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in all federal government legislation. I would welcome my colleague's comments on this.

On two occasions, I have brought forward amendments for the government to include in new legislation coming forward, including Bill C-57, which would amend the Sustainable Development Act; and Bill C-69, which would transform our entire major project review process. The Liberal government turned down more than a dozen proposals to include the UNDRIP in that legislation. I wonder if the member could also speak to this.

The government seems to want to give the illusion that it supports all the TRC calls to action. It is giving the illusion that it now supports the UNDRIP, but in its actions, it does not seem to be delivering on that promise, also as pointed out recently by the Auditor General of Canada.

[Indigenous Affairs, June 1st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General has chastised the government for failing to address matters of significance to first nations, in particular those living on reserves. In assessing well-being, he reports that the government failed to consider health, environment, language, and culture, coupled with failed meaningful engagement. These are basic rights accorded under the UNDRIP and the UN sustainable development goals that the government professes to endorse.

Why then did the Liberals oppose our amendments to Bill C-57 and Bill C-69 intended to extend those very rights and duties?

[Export and Import Permits Act, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to have a question from the member. As I mentioned, my colleague has already submitted that amendment, which was turned down by the committee and by the minister who has brought forward this bill. It would not allow manufacturers of armaments to short circuit the Arms Trade Treaty by simply selling them or brokering them through another country. Whether the officials know this or not, they are not allowed to take policy positions. We know regularly when officials come before committee, they say they cannot express a policy, that we have to ask the politicians.

It is very clear on the evidence that we have been sitting by and allowing the sale of weapons manufactured by Canadian companies to nations committing serious war atrocities, and it needs to end.

[Export and Import Permits Act, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot agree. The whole point of the treaty is to prohibit the sale and export of weapons to nations that are major human rights violators. It is to prohibit our nation, and all other nations that sign onto the treaty, from supporting atrocities. It does not matter if it is a rifle, a LAV tank, or a bomb, we should not be selling arms to nations where we know absolutely they will be used for war atrocities.

My colleague tried to table an amendment that would not allow for this exemption, where one could simply sell to a United States broker and in turn have it sold to a country that was committing atrocities.

[Export and Import Permits Act, May 31st, 2018]

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.

[Natural Resources, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, a cabinet directive, in effect since 1995, compels all ministers to complete and submit a sustainability assessment on any proposal to cabinet. The Liberals proudly claim their deep commitment to ensuring sustainability considerations for all their decisions, including impacts to the environment and indigenous rights.

Did the finance minister comply with this directive and submit a sustainability assessment on his decision to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline? If no, why not? If yes, will he publicly disclose it?

[National Security Act, 2017, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I attended many a rally concerning opposition to Bill C-51. Those constituents and people across my city are not any more convinced that they need not still be concerned. The only time I received more concerns was over the fact that the government refuses to deal with the arms trade.

It is my understanding that the government is still refusing to absolutely prohibit the use of information attained through torture, not just prohibit the country from using torture to get information, but prohibit its use in any way. The reason I raise this is that both Liberal and Conservative governments have been involved in rendition and in colluding to get that information.

If there is one thing we hear a lot of Canadians speak out about, it is that they are opposed to providing reparations when the government violates international law. We have Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati, and Muayyed Nureddin. Is the government not concerned that the amount we have to pay out in reparations is simply going to mount if we do not finally and absolutely prohibit, in any circumstance, the use of information gained through torture?

[Committees of the House, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always shows how things should be done in the House by just simply standing and providing very cogent presentations on very complex matters. I give him a thousand accolades for that.

I am little troubled about what our colleague across the way has suggested, that instead of talking about this matter of ensuring services are delivered to support constituents, it would be more important to talk about a policy reform. In my constituency office, time after time people tell me that they would like me to reform the policy on immigration, employment insurance, and the way assistance is provided to constituents. They are also concerned about what was Bill C-51, and hopefully it will be improved, although we will not hold our breath.

Could the member speak to that again? We need to remember that we have two roles as elected members, and certainly working on providing better services to our constituents is an equally important one.