House Publications

    I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Privacy Commissioner on the application of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the Privacy Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007”. Done at Nairobi on May 18, 2007. An explanatory memorandum is included with this treaty.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by concerned citizens across the country concerned about Canadian citizen and academic Hassan Diab, who was extradited to France in 2014 in a case widely viewed as a wrongful conviction in the making. He has been detained since then in France for questioning based on anonymous intelligence allegations, possibly gleaned from torture. In 2016, a French judge found consistent evidence supporting Hassan's innocence, concluding that he could not have been present in France at the time of the crime, and in May and again in October 2016, the judge ordered Hassan's release on bail, finding no grounds for his further detention, yet he has been jail or on electronic monitoring for over eight years.

    These citizens are calling on the government to do everything it can to obtain Hassan's release and return to Canada, and to intervene with the French authorities to act as soon as possible.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     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 second time and referred to a committee.

    Mr. Speaker, our government believes that regulating the international arms trade is essential for the protection of people and human rights. This is especially true for control and regulation that aim to prevent the illicit trade of arms.

    The Arms Trade Treaty is about protecting people. It ensures countries effectively regulate the international trade of arms so that they are not used to support terrorism, international organized crime, gender-based violence, human rights abuses, or violations of international humanitarian law. Our government is committed to advancing export controls as a means of reducing the risks that come from the illicit trade in conventional arms. Joining the ATT, which calls on all of its state parties to set up effective export controls, is the next important step in advancing these export controls and reducing these risks.

     Joining the Arms Trade Treaty will put Canada back on the same page as its closest partners and allies. Canada is the only NATO ally and the only G7 partner that has not signed or ratified the ATT.

    The Arms Trade Treaty was negotiated in response to growing international concern about the direct and indirect consequences of the global arms trade on conflict, human rights, and development.

    The goal is to ensure that all states take responsibility and rigorously assess arms exports. States must also regulate the legal arms trade and use transparent measures to combat illicit trade.

    We recognize that unregulated or illicit arms transfers intensify and prolong conflict, lead to regional instability, contribute to violations of international humanitarian law and humans rights abuses, and hinder social and economic development.

    Indeed, the proliferation of weapons, and particularly of small arms and light weapons, is one of the greatest security challenges faced by the international community. Armed conflicts affect civilians. Women and children are too frequently targeted or are innocent victims.

    The consequences of illicit or irresponsible flows of conventional arms also go beyond the immediate threat of death, injury, or violence. Proliferation and illicit weapons trade contribute to a climate of persistent fear and insecurity, which undermines socio-economic growth and stability.

    The Arms Trade Treaty has an important role to play in addressing these issues. Canada must be a leader in this effort, and we must lead by example.

    The ATT represents the first time that the international community has agreed to a legally binding and global commitment to control exports of conventional arms. It sets a high common standard for export of arms, and seeks to eliminate illicit trade and diversion of conventional arms.

    States acceding to the ATT must assess the risk that an export might be used negatively, including for human rights abuses or to contribute to organized crime. This is not always black and white. It requires looking not only at the state as a whole but also at who will take possession of the weapon, their track record, the risk that the weapon could be diverted from the purpose intended when it was exported, and other similar factors.

    The ATT also requires states to consider mitigation measures to address identified risks. This treaty is very clear. If there is no way to ensure that a given export will not pose a serious threat to human rights or be used to violate international humanitarian laws or perpetrate international terrorism or crime, it must be forbidden.

    Therefore, Bill C-47 would further strengthen Canada's existing processes in relation to the global movement of arms. Our changes, including those to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, will make Canada's export control system even more robust, and will ensure a continued high standard for addressing the pressing issue of arms proliferation around the globe.

    Canada’s existing export control system complies with 26 of the 28 provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty. In that sense, some changes are needed to bring Canada into full compliance with the two articles of the treaty where we fall short, namely, article 7, export and export assessment, and article 10, brokering.

    One of the things the bill before us does is introduce the necessary legislative changes to ensure that we meet our ATT obligations.

    Article 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty establishes common, clear, and rigorous standards regarding the factors that states must take into account before authorizing the export of any items subject to the ATT. These factors include an assessment of the potential that Canadian exports could be used to commit serious violations of human rights law or international humanitarian law, as well as the potential that the exports could fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists.

    The ATT is the first arms control treaty that focuses specifically on the issue of gender-based violence and violence against women and children, issues that are very important to our government. These criteria are designed to ensure that Canada assesses the risks associated with the export of a given product or piece of technology regarding the intended end use and end user.

    Bill C-47 will also ensure that Canada can fulfill the stipulations of article 10 of the ATT, which requires that every state regulate brokering. Brokering captures the transfer of arms without an export permit. The provisions of the bill ensure that Canadians who arrange the transfer of arms between a second and a third country follow the same rules as those who export arms outside Canada.

    Regulating brokering activities will give our government the ability to monitor the activities of individuals and organizations that serve as intermediaries between arms dealers and the end users of military goods.

    Moreover, these brokering permit requirements would also apply extraterritorially, meaning they would apply to Canadians engaged in brokering activities abroad. This additional capability will allow us to have a better idea of the types of brokering control list transfers involving Canadians that occur globally and to bring a greater level of visibility on potentially high-risk transactions brokered by Canadians.

    Our government intends to go beyond the standards set by the Arms Trade Treaty and ensure that brokering regulations cover not only the conventional weapons covered by the ATT but also military articles and dual-use items that are likely destined to a weapon of mass destruction end use.

    Requiring permits for brokering would ensure that comparable levels of scrutiny would also be applied to brokering activities. As a result, Canadian export permit authorities can better assess the risks of potential arms transfers before they occur to determine their suitability, and to deny a permit for such transfers where there is an overriding risk of the negative consequences of one of the export permit criteria, including the risk of serious violation of international human rights law or international humanitarian law.

    I would like to point out that there is a legitimate role for brokers who arrange or facilitate sales for reputable arms manufacturers. Unfortunately, there are also those who do not act responsibly and who choose instead to profit from the sales of arms, even though they know that they will fall into the wrong hands.

    Internationally, there are far too many cases where unscrupulous arms dealers put profits ahead of human life. Transactions facilitated by those dealers have given rise to the transfer of firearms to conflict zones, in direct violation of United Nations firearms embargoes, and to terrorist or criminal groups. This legislation will make it possible for responsible Canadian dealers to hold permits and conduct legal activities. It will ensure that those who choose to act unethically will also end up acting illegally.

    Beyond the changes required by the ATT, the bill will enhance Canada's export and import controls by addressing the issue of penalties imposed on individuals who try to circumvent Canadian law and regulations. The bill will increase the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence from $25,000 to $250,000 for any offence under the Export and Import Permits Act. Increasing the maximum penalty underscores the seriousness of these offences that contribute directly to destabilizing accumulations of weapons and technologies in conflict zones around the world.

    Let me reiterate that these new measures would ensure that our government will be better able to pursue bad-faith actors and hold them to account. At the same time, Canada would be in a better position to review bona fide arms transfers to legitimate end-users. Canada would also be able to effectively penalize those who would try to circumvent these processes.

    I would like to make it clear that Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty does not and would not affect domestic ownership of firearms or Canada's domestic firearms laws and policies. The ATT would govern the import and export of conventional arms, not the trade in sporting and hunting firearms owned and used by law-abiding Canadian citizens.

    However, the ATT does not limit the number or type of arms a country can sell. The ATT simply requires states to establish rigorous export controls of the kind that Canada already has in place to ensure that exports are not put to unforeseen harmful use.

    The ATT is not a one-size-fits-all system. It recognizes that states' export control systems must meet their national needs. It does not prevent states from including expedited processes in their export control systems, as Canada does for close allies, such as the United States.

    The government will ensure that exports are assessed in accordance with the criteria set out in the ATT and that they do not violate the prohibitions in the treaty.

    Turning now to the Export and Import Permits Act and to the Criminal Code, we have indicated to Canadians that our government is committed to strengthening Canada's export controls with respect to military and strategic goods and technology. This bill and our commitment to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty are part of our promise to increase the rigour of Canada's export-control system. As members are aware, Canada already has a robust export control system. We are a key member of a number of export control and non-proliferation regimes that allow us to exchange information on trends in arms movement and on best practices with our allies.

    In addition, Canada has a strong sanctions regime that includes sanctions related to the export or sale of arms. Canadian sanctions are part of a multilateral action. They reflect the work we do in concert with our allies. Sanctions are implemented in Canada through the United Nations Act or the Special Economic Measures Act.

    Canada has its own financial intelligence unit with respect to illicit financing of arms. The mandate of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada is to facilitate the detection, prevention, and deterrence of money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. Our government is taking steps to ensure that these new obligations do not unduly hinder or restrict legitimate transfers of military, dual-use, and other strategic items that are aligned with our national interests and do not pose undue risk.

    It is the government's intention to apply the ATT assessment criteria not only to those goods specifically outlined in the ATT, but also to all dual-use, military, and strategic goods. Our government will also apply the ATT assessment criteria to both export and brokering permit applications. We will thus exceed the standards set by the ATT, and strengthen our export control system at the same time. Indeed, our government intends to see Canada establish a particularly high standard when it comes to gender-based violence and violence against women and children. The fact that this issue was included in the treaty is a clear sign of the power of advocacy by states like Canada who are determined to address gender-based violence.

    While this is given less attention and consideration in the ATT than other criteria, Canada intends to propose including gender-based violence in the regulations, applying a higher standard, and assessing the risks related to gender-based violence to a broader set of exports than those defined within the ATT. These new measures would ensure that our government is better able to pursue bad-faith actors and hold them to account. Canada would also be better able to effectively penalize those who would try to circumvent these processes.

    Canadian businesses would still be able to conduct legitimate transactions in pursuit of Canadian strategic and defence interests and the strategic interests of our allies.

    Finally, these changes would allow Canada to meet its international obligations and accede to the ATT. I encourage all my colleagues here today to seek to advance this bill rapidly so that Canada can once again take its rightful place with its international partners as a state party to the Arms Trade Treaty.

    Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, this agreement was something that came before us. I was the parliamentary secretary for public safety, and I did a lot of work prior to that on behalf of law-abiding gun owners. In Canada, we have seen situations in which law-abiding firearms owners have been erroneously and unfairly attacked by previous governments. We worked really hard to ensure that law-abiding gun owners who follow the rules, are licensed, and are using their guns for legitimate purposes are not made into criminals.

    We have a problem with this treaty because there is no language in it that protects law-abiding gun owners, specifically here in Canada. I did not hear my colleague talk about that. He talked about how they would like to protect law-abiding gun owners and that it does not affect legitimate gun owners, but the language in the treaty does not address this.

    Why are the Liberals ready to ratify an agreement that has the potential to hurt millions of Canadians using firearms for legitimate purposes and who could be targeted if Canada does ratify this agreement?

    Madam Speaker, if we go back and listen to the speech I just gave, we will see in the blues a specific reference to the question raised by my colleague across the way. I will repeat it in case she missed it.

    To reiterate, I would like to make it clear that Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty does not and would not affect domestic ownership of firearms or Canada's domestic firearms laws and policies. The ATT governs the import and export of conventional arms, not the trade in sporting and hunting firearms owned and used by law-abiding Canadian Citizens.

    This party stands up for law-abiding Canadian citizens. This party committed to acceding to this treaty. This government understands that this treaty will in no way affect domestic ownership of firearms.

    This red herring, this phony argument made by the opposition, will not stand with this government. Canadians want us to take international leadership while at the same time standing up for the rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether Bill C-47 brings all U.S. destination military goods included in section 2 of the Arms Trade Treaty within the Export and Import Permits Act as required by the ATT, and if not, why not?

    Madam Speaker, what is important about the ATT is that it recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all system that countries who accede to it need to adopt. It meets the needs of all states and allows for the use of expedited procedures for low-risk countries, similar to the system we have in place between Canada and the U.S. As well, it recognizes that we have a deeply integrated military procurement and production system, and that where there are low-risk countries and there is not a one-size-fits-all system, countries can accede to this treaty and meet the standard.

    I reiterate that in this standard we are going to exceed in many ways the standards set by the ATT while continuing to be productive and allow industry to meet Canadian interests, and the interests of our close and trusted allies.

    Madam Speaker, after listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech, my question, although not congruent with what is written in the bill, is the following. Does he understand that the requirement for exporters or importers to retain records in a specific electronic file is for a period of up to six years, and that it must be made available to the ministry upon its request at any point in time to create an automatic firearms registry? The information has to contain all of the particulars pertaining to the sale, the import, and the export of any firearm. As well, it is more onerous than dealing with the firearm alone. It would also include all scopes, optical sights, and anything that would be associated with the sale of the firearm, including all hunting rifles, and so on. This is an onerous burden that will be placed on the backs and shoulders of businesses selling firearms in Canada. There is only one firearm manufacturer in Canada, which means that every other firearm that a hunter or a sports shooter uses comes from outside Canada. If it becomes so burdensome that these businesses no longer wish to import these firearms, or if our one domestic firearms creator is so burdened by this that it is not willing to export any more, it will have a detrimental impact on the hunting and sports shooting communities, and on the farmers I represent who use these firearms as tools in their daily business.

    Can the parliamentary secretary clarify his remarks, and be consistent with what the bill actually says?

    Madam Speaker, I have been consistent twice now. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they want to raise this phony argument and to fearmonger about our accession to this treaty.

     Let me make it clear that accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will in no way affect domestic gun ownership in this country. It will in no way put any restrictions on law-abiding Canadian citizens. It does not deal in the trade of sporting and hunting firearms.

    We expect to get this sort of rhetoric from the other side. However, we have committed to acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty and know that it is in the best interests of Canadians. We will continue to work to ensure that Canadian industrial interests are met and will work with our allies around the world to regulate the international trade in arms.

    Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on what we believe Canadians expect the government to do on this very important issue. As the Conservatives obviously are trying to attempt to mislead Canadians, what is important here is Canadians' desire for this government provide strong leadership. Why is it so important for Canada to play this leadership role?

    Madam Speaker, for 10 long years Canada had a policy of isolation and exclusion from the rest of the world. Canada has endeavoured, since this government has come into power, to reassert its leadership role in the world, to espouse Canadian values, to be a good partner in areas where we can aid in development, to aid in governance around the world, and also to work with our allies to ensure that we have a just, peaceful, and secure world.

     Canadians expect this government to take a leadership role in ensuring that the highest standards are met in the international trade in arms. That is what this bill and our accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will accomplish. It will ensure that the minister undertakes to review a significant set of criteria before issuing permits. It will increase fines for people who contravene these rules.

    Let me reiterate that in no way will it affect domestic firearm ownership in Canada.

    Madam Speaker, we are delighted that Canada has decided to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. However, I have talked to a number of experts about the government's bill to implement the treaty, and they all agree that it is a big disappointment. It is nothing but a hollow shell.

    I would like to know if the government is open to amendments in committee to really give this bill some teeth so that it respects not only the spirit but also the letter of the treaty.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Our government believes that committees should be independent and manage their own affairs. I look forward to the debate that will be held there if this bill is passed at second reading and referred to committee.

    As I mentioned several times in my speech, we believe that, by allowing us to accede to the treaty, this bill will establish high standards that Canada will exceed. I am also sure that we will have a healthy debate about this when the bill is sent to committee.

    Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to debate Bill C-47, particularly after the speech from the parliamentary secretary, which ended with incorrect information to this place in response to the question from the member for the NDP. Actually, Canada would be worse off than it was before. He said that this would send Canada ahead with respect to the aims of the treaty. That is not only incorrect on the factual review of the treaty itself, but it shows the parliamentary secretary's lack of understanding of our current arms control regime in Canada.

    Therefore, for his benefit, and for the benefit of the few of my Liberal friends listening, I will take him through that.

     The bill is part of the Liberals' election promise to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the ATT, which has been debated in the UN, has been brought forward, and signed by some countries but not by others.

    My remarks will focus on four key points. Three of those go to the inferior nature of the ATT when compared, side by side, with what Canada does now, and did do under the previous Conservative government, the Liberal government previous to that, and so on, back to the 1940s. I will give three points on how it is inferior and a final point on its inherent unfairness, lack of clarity, and over breadth.

    First, this is inferior to what Canada does now under the Export and Import Permits Act and the regulations and orders in council that can be brought forward by government under that legislation. I hope the parliamentary secretary will take notes, because he will need to research this after I go through some of it.

    The first point I make is on the Trade Controls Bureau.

     We empower a department of the government, and have since the 1940s, to ensure that military equipment sales, issues related to security, crypto logical equipment, and nuclear biological risks are not only governed and tracked but are controlled. We have a bureau already, not in New York, in Ottawa, that has been doing this very effectively for many years. The Trade Controls Bureau has been empowered and does this for each Parliament. I would invite the member to look at the Trade Controls Bureau and see how we specifically address, track, and control trade in military equipment, other items of security, or other interests. All Parliaments have done it. Both Liberal and Conservative governments have done it.

    My second point is that we specifically name, from a Canadian point of view, items for export that need to be tracked and controlled. I will review what those are for the member because they are called out specifically.

     Military or strategic dual use goods, so some goods that can be used for a military or civilian purpose, are specifically tracked. Other items are nuclear energy materials and technology; missile related technology; chemical or biological goods; and crypto logical equipment and code breaking, particularly in the age of the Internet. Many companies in Canada are world leaders in this technology, like SecureKey and others. We already monitor, control, and, in many cases, restrict export of these technologies.

    One problem in the past that we know of was that a previous government, the government of Pierre Trudeau, had some issues when nuclear technology was traded for peaceful use and was tracked, but unfortunately may have been used to develop capabilities with respect to weaponized use of that technology.

     I use that as a point of reference to show how, over many Parliaments, Canada has done this. We did not wait for the United Nations. Had we done that, it would have been a bit of a lawless west. As a responsible parliamentary democracy, Canada has been doing this.

    I invite the member to review the specific items controlled under the Export and Import Permits Act that we charge the Trade Controls Bureau to monitor.

    My third point on how our existing system is superior to an inferior UN treaty is the tracking.

     The items I just outlined, including military equipment, cryptological, nuclear, and biological, are tracked by both the Canada Border Services Agency and by Statistics Canada, and not just under our own reference points. We use the World Customs Organization tracking figures for these items. We track and limit the trade in these items far more than what the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty does.

     An article in Ceasefire magazine calls the UN's ATT a failure. The third item it tracked was its lack of transparency. There is no tracking internationally under this treaty. Canada already does it.

    I hope the parliamentary secretary rewrites the notes the government has been passing around on the bill, because they do not accord with our legislative record or Canada's responsible treatment of controlled technologies, including not only military but nuclear technology as well.

    Canada was the fourth country to have controlled nuclear fission. We have 70,000 people in Canada that work in this area. Our CANDU technology is the best in the world in capability and its safety record. We have taken this very seriously since the 1940s and we track according to the World Customs Organization tracking codes for each of those items.

    I have a fourth point at which I would invite the Liberals to look.

     Right now, we have what is called an area of control list under the Export and Import Permits Act. That empowerment in the bill, through an order in council, can specifically limit sales of anything to a country. Right now the only country on the area control list is North Korea, and it is probably very good it is on there. I would agree with the government if it wants to keep that country on the list. In the past, the area control list has included Belarus and Myanmar.

    Not only do we already have a system of controls, tracking, and itemization that is far superior to what is proposed in the bill, our legislation as it stands in Canada can ban a country entirely. That is a tool the government can use if it is about control of anything, not just our controlled items that I have said are tracked.

    The cabinet is charged with making decisions on why countries should be removed from that list. As Myanmar opened up, it was removed from that list. It was the same with Belarus. However, we still have to track. We see problems in Myanmar right now with respect to Rohingya. Perhaps the civilian oversight of the miliary is not quite as it would seem.

     The Liberal government has within its power now, not by the United Nations treaty, to limit entirely sales to a country. I would invite the parliamentary secretary to review that.

    Finally, like many UN treaties, the main players are not part of the treaty. In global arms trade, there are six countries called the “big six”. Three of those countries are not part of this treaty. I am not worried, because Canada's regime, as I have been describing to the House, is superior to this treaty.

    The treaty came as an election promise by the Liberals, but I want them to see that what Canada is doing now, and has been doing responsibly, is superior. If we want the UN to have the tracking, to have the transparency, we should be pushing to have these discussions before a treaty is brought forward. Many MPs on both sides of the House want to ensure that Canada adheres to its Export and Import Permits Act, so they need to know what a good job it is already doing.

    Finally, another inferior and quite frankly short-sighted part of the UN ATT is article 5, which would suddenly include the Department of National Defence into the military equipment provisions of that treaty, preventing, or in some cases limiting, government-to-government transfers. We have never had to catch DND within our own export and import permits regime, because DND is the government. It is a crown ministry. It is part of the crown.

    Therefore, if we want to do military-to-military aid, perhaps sending training materials to the peshmerga that our special forces are working with and training, this measure would encumber that process. I am quite sure that most Canadians believe that DND is responsible for its own equipment. Why then would we catch them in a treaty that most groups are calling a failure anyway, which does not involve three of the big six players in terms of the global arms trade?

    Finally, I have listed five or six items demonstrating that what Bill C-47 proposes is actually inferior to what Canada is already doing.

    The last item is about unfairness, and this where the politics of it come in. Just as we are seeing with small business, there is no consultation on concerns about overbreadth or the fact that hunters, sport shooters, or recreational users under a regulated regime of lawful firearm use could be caught within the confines of the measures in this bill. I have placed this last because, while the parliamentary secretary insists it is not the case, all industry groups insist it is, but without consultation, how does the parliamentary secretary know?

    It is clear that he does not understand the export and import permit regime. Maybe he knows a little more about it now, which I think is part of why we have debate now in the House of Commons. It is to show that regulation in Canada is in many ways superior to what is done anywhere else in the world, including the United Nations. Before we even talk about what the UNATT does, we should talk about what Canada is doing already, and whether it is insufficient to limit and track items that we consider potentially dangerous: military equipment, nuclear technology, chemicals, biologicals, cryptology, or anything that could adversely impact our national interest.

    On the last point, the cryptological sales, we have seen the current government green-light sales to China of pretty much any technology out there. I would suggest that some of these technology trades occurred without the proper oversight, without the full review that is normally done. For some reason those reviews were waived in the case of one of the most recent sales to China. Those reviews are important, because technology is actually the threat of the future to the public safety and security of Canada and our allies, and Bill C-47 does not address that.

     As I have said, particularly on my third point on transparency, this treaty is inferior. Civil society groups out there have called this treaty a failure, particularly because of its lack of transparency, and as I said, our Trade Controls Bureau has been empowered for two generations to track the sale and control of goods that Canadians deem important.

    On that final note, this hearkens back for me, as a member of Parliament for a suburban riding that has a rural element, to the lack of consultation on the last element, on which Canadians have genuine concerns about whether their lawful and regulated use of a firearm for hunting or sport shooting could be impacted. The parliamentary secretary uses the words “phony argument” when we suggest that. I would invite him to go hunting with someone outside of Fredericton and see if they are being phony about their concerns. What we need is consultation to see if my concerns are overinflated or if the parliamentary secretary is being dismissive. I am not suggesting that I know, but as a lawyer, I will tell members that overbreadth or lack of clarity in law is a failure in itself.

     The last government made interventions with respect to the negotiation of this treaty on many fronts, and one was a simple and reasonable carve-out of regulated civilian firearms use. I do not know why that was not pursued by the UN when there is zero transparency. However, as I said, fortunately our existing regime has transparency, while this treaty has zero.

    While things were watered down as this was negotiated by the United Nations, while three of the big countries that are actual players in global trade are not part of this regime, while those issues were going through the negotiations, a simple and effective carve-out of the legitimate, historical, and cultural use of firearms was not carved out, for whatever reason.

    Some of the cases before the Supreme Court of Canada on inherent rights of our indigenous peoples relate to hunting and fishing. This is as cultural as the earliest peoples of this land. Certainly, most people in this House think of the hunter in the duck blind and that sort of consideration, but the inherent right for our first nations to hunt, in both modern and traditional ways, is a constitutional protection.

    Would it not be reasonable to carve that out in a treaty that on many fronts is inferior to what Canada is already doing? I really hope the parliamentary secretary and other members of his caucus refrain from that divisive language suggesting that even having a reasonable concern is somehow phony. The last time I saw that degree of arrogance in the Liberal Party, it was from a member from Toronto named Allan Rock, who polarized Canadians by suggesting that people who were law-abiding hunters or sport shooters were somehow a public safety hazard for Canada.

    I know some of my Liberal friends, including from rural parts like Yukon and Labrador, know how much it hurt Canadians for the government to suggest that bringing in a licensing and registry system for people who were already trained and responsible was going to have an impact on crime. It became a divisive, rural-urban issue. This Parliament, as much as it can, should try to have debates that do not quickly revert to that approach.

    I have been hard on my friend, the parliamentary secretary. I know in Fredericton, especially with the base there—and I know he supports our men and women in uniform—he knows that culturally a lot of people find hunting and fishing to be a way of life, so if they have a concern, I think it is valid to consider that concern.

    It is also a valid question to ask the United Nations why, when transparency provisions were wiped out in the negotiations over the ATT, a simple reference providing explicit exclusion for law-abiding and regulated use by hunters and sport shooters, as we do in Canada very effectively, was not provided for. That is a failure of this treaty. Certainly groups out there that still have this concern want to know that the government is at least hearing them and is not suggesting that it is a phony argument. I am hoping, as we debate this bill over the coming days, that we can talk about it in those terms, and that we can talk about it from a starting point of what Canada is doing now.

     As a parliamentary purist, I have great respect for our parliamentary democracy, in both Houses and on both sides. This is where we debate the laws and regulations that govern Canadians. When we can work with our allies at NATO or the United Nations to help limit arms sales to North Korea or to places where there is conflict or so that we do not exacerbate someone's pursuit of technology that could be harmful, of course we would do that. We always have. However, we should also make sure, as parliamentarians, to remind Canadians that the starting point for Canada with respect to regulating, tracking, and limiting the export of military equipment and biological-chemical dangerous items is already superior to most of the world. If we do not start from that basis, I do not think we are being fair in this debate.

    The final point I will make before I close is that it is not elevating debate in this House to suggest that if the Canadian Shooting Sports Association has a concern about overbreadth, their concern is somehow phony. I hope we have a debate that is better than that, and that we have the context of the Export and Import Permits Act regime to underline a debate on Bill C-47.

    Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's comments and I really enjoyed hearing his arguments in the first part of his presentation. I was disappointed in the second part which, once again and for years, has brought up the bogus argument concerning legal ownership and lawful ownership of firearms, but I will pass over that.

    What I would really like my colleague to tell me after hearing all that—because I thought he was rather defensive in arguing against the bill—is what the intention of the Conservative Party is with respect to supporting or not supporting the bill. Canadians would like to know whether the Conservative Party of Canada is going to support ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty. If it is not going to support it, they want to know why not. I would appreciate being enlightened by my hon. colleague on that question.

    Madam Speaker, I too enjoy when the Minister of Transport weighs in on things. I enjoyed his interventions much more when he was sitting on this side as opposed to that side, but that is the way Parliament works. I have the utmost respect for him.

    In that list of items, one thing I found absent was our world-leading position as a country in space and some of our technology related to space. I know the minister knows the issue far better than anyone in the House.

    In the last government, the sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates was prevented because of national security concerns. The member liked some of the arguments I made and did not like others.

    Why did I sound defensive? It was because the parliamentary secretary ended his question and comment period in French by saying that this was going to be taking what Canada is doing to the next regime. I was listening without translation and from a distance, but he was leaving the effect that the regime Canada had in place was somehow inferior to Bill C-47.

    My speech was intended to show that it is not. In fact, our tracking is far superior, and because of uncertainty—and with respect, I do think it is genuine, although he may suggest it is not genuine—all groups that have hunters and sports shooters, including indigenous hunters and sports shooters, who have a constitutional right for that, think it is unreasonable that one definition could not go in this treaty to carve out responsible and legal firearm use. To coin a term, I think that is a modest proposal, but because we do not have that carve-out and because I hear the language of the nineties creeping back in, I oppose the bill. However, I rest easy at night because our regime in place now is already doing more than this treaty would.

    Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind members that the only person standing up during the discussion should be the person who is speaking. When I ask for questions and comments, other individuals can stand up at that time.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

    Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about indigenous people's constitutional right to own firearms and hunt. I fully support that right, but I am a bit confused, because it seems as though we are talking about two different bills.

    I have been following this issue for years and I have never seen anything in the Arms Trade Treaty that would have any impact whatsoever on the right of indigenous people or any other Canadians to hunt. I also do not see anything in the implementation bill that would affect that right.

    Could my colleague please tell me exactly what section of the Arms Trade Treaty would affect this right?

    Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague at the foreign affairs committee, as a newer member of that committee. I would suggest that she is going to hear that exact concern if this bill comes to committee in the next month or two, and we are debating that right now.

    What is interesting about the concern being expressed from hunters and sports shooters is that they are a cross-section of Canadians, including indigenous Canadians who have some unique rights. Their concerns are founded based on vague language in the treaty. They are also concerned in terms of the breadth of the term “broker” in the treaty. They are also very concerned by the fact that some countries, Canada included, wanted a specific carve-out for lawful firearms use. What we are talking about here is reasonable: why that was excluded despite Canada intervening and other countries asking. That would have given the certainties that lawyers like to see. They do not like ambiguity. They do not like uncertainty. The fact that it was rejected leads to that question.

    The committee review process of this bill, I hope, will bring some of those concerns to Parliament and to one of our committees; so then we can at least see that these are not phony arguments, as someone on the government side suggested. These are genuine concerns, and the fact that those concerns were rejected in the final negotiating rounds of this treaty leads some to believe that the treaty's intention is to regulate those types of civilian uses of firearms. Sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, perhaps it is a duck.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intelligent speech that I heard from my colleague from Durham. My question for him is based on the following premise.

     In 1995, I believe, Allan Rock, who was the minister of justice at the time, introduced the Canadian long-gun registry under the presumption that it would reduce crime. Lo and behold, what we found out across Canada is that criminals do not register their firearms. The premise of the Arms Trade Treaty from the United Nations is to keep communities more safe in various countries because they want to track the movement of firearms, much like the failed long-gun registry did here in Canada.

     Does my colleague from Durham believe that illegal international gunrunners will be registering their firearms with the United Nations?

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alberta, who does a lot of work with hunters and anglers in Canada and knows that their questions are legitimate ones, which this Parliament should not only consider but consider respectfully because they are real concerns.

     The member also touches on really the glowing hole in this treaty. He has identified it by the concern we have globally of arms getting into some conflicts. The fact is that three of the largest six trading nations in these types of goods are not part of this treaty. Canada is not a major producer of military equipment or nuclear, chemical, or biological. We are a producer because we are a technology-laden country with diverse manufacturing and trade, but we are not a leader.

     In the context of the fact that it is vague in certain areas, Canadians should be rightly concerned about how this treaty would apply when we already have a very effective regime in Canada. I have heard no Canadian saying to me that we need to reform the Export and Import Permits Act. No one has ever said that.

    I highlighted in one of my points the area control list empowered by this legislation. There is also an export control list. The government already has in its tools the ability to control or limit countries and what goods go out of Canada. We already have this ability, so the valid concerns about this treaty lead to my not wanting to support it.

    Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague takes offence to the use of the word phony, I am happy to continue talking about the bogus argument that the members are making, as my colleague the Minister of Transport used when it comes to the argument that they are trying to insinuate that this would in any way affect law-abiding gun owners in Canada. It will not.

    Based on some of the other confusion that the member displayed in his speech around the significant regime to which Canada is party, let me remind him that the ATT deals specifically with the conventional arms trade—often arms that go into conflict zones, that disproportionately affect women, children, girls, and vulnerable people. Was the previous government unaware of that, or did it simply not care to take a leadership role to fix that?

    Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the parliamentary secretary. Therefore, as parliamentary colleagues, I invite him to collaborate on two things. First, I will go to a meeting of the Trade Controls Bureau with him, when he gets a briefing on what it has done since the 1940s with respect to the superior approach to regulation. Second, he knows my friend Brian Macdonald, who is an MLA in his area. I want him to go with Brian Macdonald to one of the hunting areas in New Brunswick to hear these concerns first-hand before using words such as phony or bogus.

    Madam Speaker, today marks the International Day of Peace. Canada often holds itself out as a peacemaker. However, if we truly want peace, we need to stop the proliferation of arms, particularly in areas troubled by unrest, in war-torn countries where human rights mean nothing.

    However, Canada's recent track record in this respect is rather troubling. Many Canadians would be troubled to learn that in the last 10 years Canadian arms exports have nearly doubled. Moreover, Canada is the second most important arms exporter in the Middle East after the United States. Therefore, we are certainly heavily involved there.

    Yes, Canada is now the second-biggest exporter of arms to the Middle East, after the United States. No one would certainly describe the Middle East as a calm, stable region.

    Our arms used to be exported mainly to NATO countries. Now they often go to countries whose human rights records are questionable, to say the least. Saudi Arabia is the second-biggest buyer of Canadian arms and the second-biggest export destination for our weapons.

    I am always troubled to see this kind of behaviour from a government that calls itself feminist, and I am not alone. Canadians do not support this.

    The government has said that it has good measures in place to control its arms exports, and that it already has strong regulations. However, again, if we look at Saudi Arabia, the regulations state that we should not export arms to a country if there is reasonable doubt and risk that these arms will be used to commit human rights abuses. Although there is ample evidence for that being currently the case, the government is blind to it. Certainly, there is an investigation, but the Saudis have admitted that they want to repress people. The government is not only blind but seemingly deaf, on top of blind.

    In August we learned that Canada watered down its own criteria for arms exports to countries with bad human rights records, and the government did this after pledging that Canada would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, and after saying at that time that it would respect both the spirit and the letter of the treaty. Typically, the Liberals say that but do quite the opposite by watering down our criteria.

    The best way to illustrate what I am talking about is to look at the number of export permit applications. Canada is exporting more and more to countries that do not respect human rights. How many of these export permit applications is Canada rejecting?

    L'Actualité investigated and found that, of the 7,310 export permit applications submitted, only 10 were rejected. Ten. That says it all.

    Most of our exports go to Saudi Arabia, which has been mentioned, China, Algeria, and other countries. That is why the government's decision to finally sign the Arms Trade Treaty gave people so much hope. This is something people have been calling for for years. We know that the Conservatives, for reasons that make no sense to most observers, steadfastly refused to sign the treaty. The NDP felt certain that the government would finally do something and that Canada would join the Arms Trade Treaty. Unfortunately, in typical Liberal fashion, the government has introduced a bill to implement the treaty. I know a lot of people were very anxious to see this bill.

    This is another example of a typical Liberal bill. In other words, it is all talk and no action, nothing but a hollow shell.

    First, the bill does not address at all the issue of our exports to the U.S., which is half of our exports. Therefore, all of these exports will continue to fall outside the scope of this law and outside the scope of the treaty. This in itself, to start with, is a breach of articles 1, 2, and 5 of the Arms Trade Treaty, so one of the first things we are doing is breaching three of the key articles of the treaty. It does matter beyond breaching the articles of the treaty. First, there is the matter of transparency. When we get the annual reports on arms exports—and I hope we will get them sooner and that they will be clearer, more transparent, and understandable—half of our exports remain unreported. Is that transparent? I am listening to my colleagues here, and they do not think it is.

    Also, when we talk about meeting the letter and spirit of the ATT, it means that arms or armament parts can be exported from Canada to the U.S. and then exported elsewhere. President Obama put a ban on exporting arms from the U.S. to Nigeria because of human rights concerns. President Trump made a deal—the art of the deal—with Nigerian authorities and lifted this ban, and now the U.S. is exporting planes and armaments to Nigeria made of components coming from which country, do members think? They come from Canada. It would be important to cover our exports to Canada.

    The government will probably say that it is too difficult to do, because half of our exports go to the United States, and yet other countries manage to do it, including Australia and even Great Britain, one of our NATO partners. They have systems in place to track exports to the U.S.

    We cannot say that we will respect the spirit and the letter of the treaty, and then violate specific articles or disregard the spirit and the letter of the treaty because it is too difficult. It has to be one or the other. Canada either complies with the treaty or it does not. Obviously, the government has no intention of complying with it.

    Another huge problem is that the bill does not say anything about the assessment criteria that will be used for exports. That is rather strange, for this kind of bill.

    That is a huge problem.

    One expert asked me, after looking at the bill, where the meat is. The meat will be in regulations. The concrete criteria to oversee arms exports will be put in those regulations, regulations that do not have to be debated in the House, that will not be discussed among representatives of Canadians across the country, regulations that can be changed at any time by the current government or any subsequent government. This is very weak.

    This is just smoke and mirrors.

    On top of all that, there is another problem. In the briefing documents we received from Global Affairs Canada, it says that the regulations will set out the criteria the minister will take into account before issuing export permits.

    We already have criteria in place that the minister must take into account when evaluating export permits and as a result we are selling arms to Saudi Arabia. The Arms Trade Treaty makes no mention of the criteria that must be taken into account. It talks about obligations and specific and serious restrictions. It provides a clear limit. Such and such is prohibited, the other is allowed. However, in the departmental information it says “must take into account”.

    Obviously, this will be clarified in the regulations, the very regulations that no one in the House can debate. What is more, those regulations will be drafted behind closed doors.

    There is another problem. Actually, there are quite a few, so I have to choose which ones to mention. According to the information in the briefing note provided by Global Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence will have its own system for implementing the legislation or the treaty. I do not get it. The left hand will do one thing and the right hand will do another.

    How does that work?

    Is there a chance that this creates some sort of loophole?

    How will this work?

    As far as I can tell, there is no plan here.

    What the government is basically telling Canadians and the world is to just trust them. However, in matters of disarmament, I am sorry to say that I do not think the Liberal government can be trusted.

    The NDP have tried to enhance transparency and oversight. We tried to create a committee that would, on an ongoing basis, study this issue of arms exports. This is something that Canadians care about. What did the Liberals say? It is no surprise that they said no.

    When we asked the government to show the same kind of courage Canada has shown with regard to land mines and participate in the efforts of over 120 countries in the UN to work on nuclear disarmament, it said that maybe it would not work and that it was too difficult, as if it could not walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Let us come back to Saudi Arabia. We are selling arms to a country that abuses human rights, despite our feminist foreign policy. The minister first told us that we could not do anything because it was a done deal. I happen to disagree with this, because a minister can suspend an export permit. We then learned that he signed the export permits after he and the Prime Minister had told us that it was a done deal. As I said, Canada should only export arms to a country if there is no reasonable risk that these arms will be used against civilians or to commit war crimes.

    The Liberal government is not even respecting that. How can we trust the regulations it will put in someday once the bill passes, or how it is going to respect those regulations?

    Again, with respect to Saudi Arabia, when I asked the government yesterday about the arms deal with Saudi Arabia, I was basically told that the government had asked the Saudis to respect human rights. While I am very pleased that the government did that, I am somewhat skeptical about the efficiency of the manoeuvre.

    Nonetheless, we are going to support this bill because we have been asking for a bill on this issue for such a long time. We really want to see Canada truly accede to and abide by the Arms Trade Treaty.

    I hope that the government will show good faith and agree to make amendments in committee. That is why we are going to vote in favour of this bill. However, this so-called implementation bill must be improved because right now it is not very effective. Canada and the entire world expect nothing less.

    I said at the beginning of my speech that today is International Peace Day. We know that the illicit and irresponsible transfer of conventional weapons is a major cause of suffering in the world because it leads to all kinds of violence.

    We want to put an end to that through the Arms Trade Treaty. We want to put and end to situations where companies based in Canada or third countries can sell weapons to South Sudan. We want to put an end to situations where Canada officially laments the tragedy in Yemen, which is currently experiencing a major humanitarian crisis, but continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, which leads the very coalition alleged to be committing war crimes in that country.

    We need to clean up our arms export system, and unfortunately, this bill does not do that.

    Madam Speaker, I followed the comments of my colleague opposite very closely, and in particular those that referenced Saudi Arabia. I remember during the election campaign the leader of third party making a solemn promise at the gates of the very factory where these vehicles were being manufactured, to the union that represented the workers, and to the leadership of the workers specifically, that come hell or high water, the NDP would honour the contract between the factory and Saudi Arabia.

    The member for London—Fanshawe made the same promise, the same commitment, in writing to the workers, to the leadership of the union, and to the corporation. They publicly held a press conference and declared that they would not, under any circumstance, with no qualification, withdraw the trade deal between Saudi Arabia and the plant in the member's riding of London—Fanshawe.

    I am curious as to how they described that promise, why they made the promise, and how they were going to fulfill it in light of the information the member has just shared with us, which predates that promise being made. Why did the NDP members campaign so fervently, so deliberately, so specifically on honouring this contract and then come into the House after the election and say they were just kidding?

    Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I get the impression that he was speaking with a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration.

    First, I would like to point out that we have always said the workers and the equipment in London could also be used to supply the Canadian army, which is in dire need of such equipment. Taking care of these workers and their future is a top priority.

    I wonder if my colleague is aware that Saudi Arabia executed many dissidents last year, or that serious allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity began to circulate this year, or that vehicles similar to the Canadian LAVs have been seen in Yemen and eastern Saudi Arabia, where political dissidents are being fiercely repressed. All this has been reported in the news in the past few months, and I would be happy to share the articles with my colleague.

    Madam Speaker, I do appreciate listening to what the member had to say today, as well the others who have spoken to this issue in the House.

    As a new member of Parliament, the ATT is new to me. There is a lot of information to process. I am hearing conflicting perspectives on the Canadian trade controls bureau and its effectiveness. I believe we all want similar things. It is just a matter of how we come about getting them.

    It seems to me that the member has a great deal of experience on this file. I have a question in relation to the UN and the expectations that we have in the House on accountability and transparency, and on measuring outcomes. For those countries that have already ratified this treaty, is the member aware of the UN's current assessment of the effectiveness of the treaty to date, in controlling and limiting illegal arms sale? Are they able to measure and determine if this is being effective?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

    Monitoring is certainly important, and I think it is something that needs to happen, collectively, on two levels. If I remember correctly, the United Nations has an office dedicated to tracking this type of file. Monitoring needs to happen collectively, through the United Nations, but it also needs to happen domestically. In Canada's case, half of the arms exports will not be tracked or reported in any way. There will be no assessment or ongoing monitoring, activities that I think are absolutely essential.

    This brings me back to what we can do. The United Nations has a whole section dedicated to disarmament and to tracking these files. I was thinking that Canada could also create a committee that would meet regularly to monitor this extremely important issue.

    Madam Speaker, I am wondering about one very particular point. Since the Liberals have taken power here in Canada, there has been a transition in the United States to the administration of President Trump.

    There is one aspect of the ATT that I think should concern all of us, and certainly my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who have said they stand up for human rights and want to raise Canada's reputation in the world. The exclusion of armament exports by Canada to the United States in the ATT is almost like a money laundering scheme, or an ethics or conscience laundering scheme.

     Armaments can be produced in Canada, exported to the U.S., and be included in some armaments export deal to countries that are known human rights abusers—I think the member raised the case of Nigeria earlier, on which Canada has raised concerns about its human rights record.

    Canada can say that we will not directly export arms to Nigeria, but in fact through the current bill, as proposed now, we can manufacture those same armaments in Canada, send them to the United States, where President Trump has said that he has no problem with Nigeria's human rights record, assemble the weapons there and send them on to Nigeria where they are then used to suppress human rights activities, to suppress minority groups within that country. That is one example, and there are other examples that we could call forward.

    We would then condemn the Americans and say it is not right that they are sending those weapons to that country and killing people, including human rights activists.

    The Prime Minister is at the United Nations today, making a declaration. In fact, in some ways I think he is counterposing his views to what President Trump said earlier to the in his bellicose statements encouraging more war, more conflict, and less peace. I encourage the Prime Minister to make those statements, and I am sure he will.

    However, is there not some hypocrisy in then putting forward an Arms Trade Treaty here in Parliament that essentially attempts to wash Canada's hands of any involvement in any weapons sale to countries that we publicly condemn, yet privately allow our weapons to continue to be exported, allowing our manufacturing to contribute to our involvement in human rights abuse?

    I am not sure how the Liberal government can countenance this level of hypocrisy. Or, it could just make the change and say we will not exclude the United States from the ATT. I am sure my colleague from Toronto would raise his constituents' concerns about this. I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg, who will speak on this later, would also do so. We should be saying that we will not sell weapons to that country. We cannot do indirectly what we are not willing to do directly.

    If we are not willing to sell weapons to Nigeria because of human rights concerns, then how, for heaven's sake, can we sell them to the United States, which is willing to do the exact same thing in a more direct fashion?

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and for the expression he coined, which I am going to borrow.

    I am going to reuse the expression “conscience laundering” like money laundering. Yes, it is a big problem, it is a big issue and it raises a lot of points, which I mentioned in my speech.

    I pointed out the fact that regulations could be changed by any government at any time. Yes, something has happened in the United States, where we now have the Trump administration. In Canada, hopefully we will not get similar surprises, but administrations can change. However, at some point, we could get a government that is even more inclined to not fulfill our commitments to the Arms Trade Treaty and further weaken the regulations. These things have to be put into law. That is one of the things we will ask for at committee.

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this important issue. Many Canadians have taken a great deal of interest in this because they expect the Government of Canada to demonstrate leadership on the world scene on important issues.

    I take exception to some of the comments made by my colleagues across the way, especially when they use the word “hypocrisy” with respect to this issue. The member for Spadina—Fort York brought up a wonderful example. Let me put it in the clearest fashion I can.

    The New Democrats take the high ground, or try to be the moral authority on a particular issue, and use the word hypocrisy. Let me remind my friends that the leader of the New Democratic Party, in the last federal election, said to workers, unions, and anyone else who would listen that the NDP would honour and respect the agreement with Saudi Arabia. Today we have heard members across the way talk about how bad it is and that the government should not honour it, yet their very leader committed his party to honouring it. There is a consistency problem within the NDP ranks and we hope that over the coming months they can deal with that, but we will have to wait to find out what their actual position is on issues such as this.

    Getting back on track, I want to focus my attention on what we are debating today and how it came to be.

     The Conservative Party should be familiar with what we are talking about today. There are a number of new Conservative members in the House, and I recognize that. However, when Stephen Harper was prime minister, he had delegates at the UN discussions. They were a part of the discussions in 2012 that ultimately led to the agreement. For whatever reason, and I do not quite understand why, they never signed that agreement. A member has said that he knows why they never signed it. Would that member please tell us why? Would that member please share with Canadians why the Conservatives refused to sign off on the agreement even though they participated in the discussions? Every G-7 country, with the exception of Canada, along with our NATO partners, have signed the agreement. I do not know why Stephen Harper was against it at the time, nor why the Conservatives still are to this day.

    Our government is quite different, thank goodness, than the previous government. We recognize that there is a role for Canada to play on the international scene, and it is expected of us. In fact, today the Prime Minister is making his second address to the UN today.

    This is important. These treaties are about making the world a safer place. Good, solid, responsible governments around the world understand and appreciate the importance of getting engaged in these things. A the end of the day, why would we not make the best efforts we can to make our world a safer place?

    When Lloyd Axworthy was a minister a number of years ago, he played an important role in signing off on the land mine treaty. Canada led the way in dealing with land mines. Far too often, we hear the horror stories of land mines that are still there today. At least Canada, as one of many nations, recognized it was the right thing to do.

     Once again, we have a treaty that was negotiated back in 2012 and then entered into force in 2014. However, we cannot thank the previous government for that. It chose not to be one of the countries to ensure it became enforced. Instead of having a desire to show leadership on the issue, the Conservatives felt it was more appropriate to sit back and take no action on this front.

    Within two years, we have seen many things take place since the change of government. My favourite was our first piece of legislation, which was all about giving that tax break to Canada's middle class and having the 1% of Canada's wealthiest pay a little more in order for those in our middle class to have more money in their pockets. Whether it is that initiative, the infrastructure initiatives, senior benefit programs, the Canada child program, or the assisted dying legislation, so much other business of the House has been dealt with in two years. This treaty is also one of those priority issues. Within two years, we have have had the department go through what has taken place, and now we have are in a position to debate it today.

    My gut feel is that the Conservative Party does not necessarily understand what we are actually debating, or at the very least the principle of what we are debating today. If we listen to the questions of Conservative members, they are more interested in trying to relive an old argument about the gun registry, which was brought up in the 1990s and is something on which the Prime Minister has been very clear. They are regurgitating it. They are the Conservatives/Reformers of the past. They have completely lost touch with what Canadians expect of an official opposition, and I am okay with that to a certain degree.

    We just had a break, which was a wonderful opportunity to go into their constituencies and listen to what Canadians had to say. However, obviously, the Conservative Party has lost touch with what Canadians truly expect of government. We are having this debate, but they want to change the scope. They want to go back to the past. Therefore, I will tell them what we are actually talking about, and it is not domestic gun registry policy.

    We respect gun owners in Canada, and we have been very clear on that. We have had clear answers even to those unrelated questions or concerns, which I believe the Conservative Party is just trying to stir up for political purposes, possibly trying to create a wedge issue. As opposed to trying to demonstrate that there is strong leadership within the Conservative Party on this file, they are trying to change or go outside of the scope of the legislation.

    What is the scope? It is all about conventional weaponry. If members read the bill, this is what we are talking about. Listen to some of the Conservative members who have already spoken. They who are talking about nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, and we all know about the gun registry and issues of that nature.

    However, this is actually the core of the treaty which states:

    That is what the treaty is all about.

     One of the Conservative MPs, I think it was the member for Durham, asked, why are we agreeing to this treaty when we have already things in place to do it? The member and the Conservatives are missing the point here. Number one is to understand what the treaty is all about, and get a sense of why it is being debated here today and where it is actually coming from. The United Nations, all other G7 countries, and all other NATO countries have already accepted it.

    In fact, one of my New Democratic friends, just the other day, said there are different types of legislation, and that some legislation is fairly straightforward and should receive quick passage. I would suggest this is one of those pieces of legislation. At least, we can have it go to committee, and let committee deal with it. If anything, this government has demonstrated very clearly that, where committees do good work and are prepared to come up with ideas that can improve legislation in a very real and tangible way, and have been able to demonstrate that at the committee, we are open to those types of amendments.

    This legislation should not be all that controversial. It is actually fairly straightforward. We could be doing a great service, I would suggest to look at the scope of the legislation, and accept it for what it is, as opposed to just opposing for the sake of opposing, and then trying to generate ideas as to why one is opposing it. Let us just move forward with it.

    I am not trying to limit debate in any fashion. If people want to get engaged, such as I do, and talk about the importance of the treaty, that is great. I would ultimately argue, especially when we get treaties that are coming from the UN, and we have such wide support from all the G7 and NATO countries, our allies, that this is a very strong positive.

    I look forward to the legislation ultimately passing. Through its passage, we would send a very important message, that at the end of the day, we recognize there is weaponry distributed throughout the world, manufactured in many parts of the world, but circulated in every region of the world.

    Unfortunately and sadly, there are far too many cases that countries get this weaponry from wherever it originates. Obviously, we are most concerned about Canada, but we are not just limited to Canada. If it falls into the wrong hands, and at times it might end up doing so, we need to put up safeguards to minimize that risk.

    That is really what this treaty to me is all about. It is minimizing the risk. If those responsible countries around the world choose to do nothing, we will have more terrorism and more violations of human rights.

    When we have treaties of this nature, and this particular treaty dealing with those items I have listed, there will be a responsibility. It has often been said that Canada has a population of 35 million or 36 million people and, looking at the world population versus the population of Canada, we would wonder how much clout do we really have.

    I have heard member after member on all sides of the House, New Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals, talk about how Canada, even as a country with 35 million people, carries an incredible amount of influence around the world. Something that is earned, I would argue.

    It is earned by the actions we take, and not just parliamentarians but Canadians in every region of our country demonstrate that concern. When a massive flood, earthquake, whatever it might be, takes place anywhere in the world, Canadians are the very first to participate, individuals, non-profit groups, governments, just name it, because we are not only very concerned about Canada but the impact of all the things around us.

    Through the years, we have developed a very strong international reputation, a reputation of which I am extremely proud. Like many members, I have travelled outside of Canada and often people commend our country as being a fantastic place, and thank us. I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I understand the carnage that can be caused by some of the weapons I have listed. I have marched and participated in Remembrance Day celebrations and recognitions of the achievements of our forces, the current and past members of the Canadian Forces.

    I had those second-hand experiences by listening to those who had first-hand experiences and from what little first-hand experience I have, I have a basic understanding of the type of weaponry we are talking about in this treaty. Liberals want the treaty to pass, for Canada to join the G7 and NATO countries. We support this legislation and, ultimately, the treaty itself.

    Let me highlight the important messages that need to be emphasized. The government is committed to taking a comprehensive, compassionate, and evidence-based approach on this issue. This was brought forward to us.

    The summary of the bill states:

    There is so much more that is happening. I want to very briefly comment on how important that industry is to Canada. It would be a huge mistake for us to ignore that, and perhaps I will have the opportunity to expand on that if a question is posed to me.

    Madam Speaker, I often enjoy listening to the member for Winnipeg North and his speeches, because he becomes quite animated. The volume in his speech often explains his compassion and sense of righteousness in what he is saying.

    I happened to notice, when he was speaking today, that he was speaking about what is included in the bill. He was speaking with great volume nuclear weapons and tanks, basically weapons of mass destruction. When he mentioned small arms, he was quite hushed in comparison. It is because he does not want to recognize that the bill brings back a long-gun registry.

    I bring this up because it was the long-gun registry that the Liberal government brought in, in the 90s, that peaked my interest in politics and led to my being here today. I will stand in the House and defend hunters, anglers, and sports shooters across the country against the government creating another long-gun registry, which is what this act would do.

    How does the member opposite not believe that is exactly what the bill is doing?

    Madam Speaker, I would stand with the member if I believed that was, in fact, the case in this particular piece of legislation. That is why I tried, in the best way I could, to highlight what the bill actually does.

    Let me be crystal clear, because the member across the way is not the only member from the Conservative Party who has raised this issue. The ATT does not affect domestic gun control regulations, period. It does not create a registry of conventional weapons. Nothing in the ATT prevents the lawful use of sporting firearms for legitimate purposes, such as sport shooting and hunting, nor does it hinder the legitimate trade in conventional arms. I do not know how much clearer we can be on the issue.

    However, let us get right into the scope of the legislation itself. Canadians have a right to know whether or not the official opposition, and the new leadership within that opposition, actually support the UN treaty. Listening to the debate, I am of the opinion that they actually do not support it. They should realize that if they do not have a road to Damascus conversion on this issue, they will be completely offside with the rest of the G7 countries, with NATO countries, our allies, and this government.

    Madam Speaker, on behalf of the other Liberals who are not allowed to speak, I wonder if at some point the member could share a little of the space here. He has been here a while. So many new Liberal MPs have told me how keen they are to speak in the House of Commons. Some of our time is taken up by my friend, over and over again, regardless of the bill.

    Very specifically, on this piece of legislation, the government has said we should not sell arms to countries that flout human rights abuses, yet under Bill C-47, there is a provision, a loophole, that allows Canadian arms to be manufactured here in Canada and then sent through the United States and on to those very same countries, particularly because Donald Trump feels they are okay, and he is looking to make a deal and wants to sell more weapons.

    We could, at committee, allow a provision that would say that if we cannot sell directly to a country like Nigeria, which we cannot, then we cannot sell indirectly to a country like Nigeria through the United States. That seems like a reasonable and consistent position to take. Otherwise, the Liberals would be open to the accusation of hypocrisy to say they will not look, but will continue to practise abusing human rights and using Canadian armaments to do it.

    I think my friend, who says he is very knowledgeable about the ATT and the bill, would see that as a glaring error in its construction right now. This loophole through the U.S., with the current administration, which I hope my friend does not agree with when it comes to human rights or respect for international law in the vision of Donald Trump, should be closed. We should not allow Canadian weapons to be diverted through the United States, and then on to regimes that Canada does not support or respect.

    Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the U.S.A. has to abide by the same treaty. I would remind the members across the way that records for export of arms have been required since 1942. We look at the treaty as a global issue that Canada should be part of, and there are some in this chamber who believe, as I do, that Canada can play a very strong leadership role on the issue.

    When the member makes reference to the word “hypocrisy”, I addressed that in my opening comments. Before starting to point a finger across the aisle here to the government benches, the member should be reminded that there are more fingers pointing back in his direction, and he needs to reflect in terms of what the leader of the New Democratic Party said in the last election related to Saudi Arabia, followed a month later by members who said completely the opposite. We need not take any lessons on hypocrisy from members of the New Democratic Party, especially on this issue.

    I did not get the opportunity to comment in regard to the industries within Canada. We do produce some incredible machinery and through that there are many middle-class jobs. All parties on both sides of the House have recognized that fact. Ensuring that we have responsible policy for exports of arms is something Canadians expect of us, and that is what this government is delivering.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reiterate for the record that we are not bringing back the long-gun registry.

    I would like to ask my hon. colleague to explain how the bill would make trade more progressive and more transparent, and strengthen oversight on how future governments can trade arms overseas.

    Mr. Speaker, we get a great deal of misinformation, which has been spoken already in the last couple of hours from those within the chamber who have a political interest in trying to create wedge issues where there is no wedge, and that is dealing with the gun registry. It is just a non-issue.

    Members can say and do what they want, but they should know that Canadians are not dumb. If they were listening to what Canadians are actually saying as opposed to trying to tell Canadians untruths, they would be better off to listen and get behind this piece of legislation. That goes to my colleague's question because we are going to see more transparency and more accountability. Countries around the world have recognized the importance of this treaty and have established some guidelines, some thresholds, much of which is going to be public in different way. We see that as a good thing, and that is why I would encourage my Conservative friends across the way to support the legislation.

    Mr. Speaker, I rose several times before, and was not able to be recognized. I probably was not quick enough to get up to be recognized. Before I begin with my remarks, I notice that the theme of the Liberal Party platform is hypocrisy. I would never accuse my New Democratic colleagues of that. I, at least, know that they believe in something.

    We often disagree, but on the Liberals' side it is all about power and how to use it. We can see it right here in the legislation and the treaty itself. They say one thing but the law says something completely different. Through talking points, press releases, and carefully scripted exempt-staffer-written speeches on that side, they are saying the truth is that they are not creating a registry when they actually are.

    We heard the parliamentary secretary mention that the G7 and NATO have signed on and are abiding by it. One of the biggest arms manufacturers and biggest military equipment manufacturers, the United States, signed it but did not ratify it. That is a factual error that the parliamentary secretary committed in this House.

    There is a Yiddish proverb that says that half an answer also says something. We are hearing half answers a lot on that side. They are not saying the full thing. I wanted to repeatedly rise in the House and ask them to show me in this legislation and the treaty where sharpshooters, hunters, and sports shooters will not be affected by a gun registry. That is exactly what is going to happen. My remarks will be principally demonstrating how, in fact, this creates such a system, not one run necessarily directly by the federal government, but one through the collection and amalgamation of information that will do exactly that.

    This morning, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs present this bill and make a big deal about how no lawful gun owner would be affected by this. He is carrying the water today for his minister. I know that. What is the clause? Why did he not mention in this House what clause it was that protects gun owners, law-abiding, family-oriented people who just enjoy hunting or sport shooting on weekends with their friends? Where is the section in the legislation that specifically speaks to them and exempts them from sections of this bill? Why did they not choose to add perhaps something in the preamble to the amended legislation that would say that they believe Canadians have a right to lawfully own firearms for lawful purpose? Why did they not provide a greater clarity clause, as it is called here?

    Why did the Liberals not express their reservations through that mechanism? If it is not in the arms treaty that the United Nations has, why did they not go ahead and just write it in? They could have done that. It would have been a drafting mechanism to demonstrate to lawful gun owners in Canada that the government has their backs and is actually listening.

    The best I could find was a press release on the Government of Canada's website that states:

    They could have put that into a preamble. Instead, they chose to put it into a press release, which really has no force of law or effect to it. Why did they not do that?

    When the member for Durham spoke, he basically explained exactly what Canada has been doing up to this point. He covered it all, from the 1940s to today: the export control system that Canada has for military manufactured equipment and its export and import controls.

    When we speak about the treaty, article 10 talks about the brokering, how it is going to be controlled now, how people will need to get permits, and that there will be certification of documents that will need to be created. It even says that it may include requiring brokers to register or obtain written authorization before engaging in brokering. This is for military equipment.

    The parliamentary secretary went through the list in article 2, the scope of the treaty. I will go through it too. Before I do, I want to mention the record-keeping aspect of it, which is what many gun owners are concerned about in Canada. This is article 12 of the treaty, which goes through details such as:

    It then goes into further details, such as “transit or trans-ship territory under its jurisdiction”. It also talks about conventional arms actually transferred. It then goes into certification details such as what type of registry this will be and how it shall be kept.

    In the law, we see that they are amending the section on keeping of records, which is 10.3(1). Then they are amending sections 10.3(4), (5), and (6), but in there, the minister can already direct individuals and organizations to keep records in a specified manner and for a specified purpose. The minister can tell them what to do with it.

    I know that the parliamentary secretary talked about scope, and started reading off all of them. I am going to do it, too, just to refresh the memory of this House.

    Article 2 is about scope: battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems—we can all agree the average Canadian should not own any of these things—combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.

    I have an electronic version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The definition of “small arms” is “weapons (such as handguns and rifles) that are fired while being held in one hand or both hands”. That could mean civilian or military use. There are many firearms that have a dual use, that are used by military forces across the world, even our allies, for training purposes, for cadet programs and that also have a secondary use.

     Lots of times the same manufacturer will make two versions of the same firearm, one for civilian use and one for military use. It is military equipment that the member says the treaty is concerned with and the law is concerned with. However, it actually covers everybody, because it covers all the manufacturers. That is where there is a problem.

    Even though he said that the previous Conservative government of the time had participated in negotiations of a treaty, governments participate in negotiations of treaties all the time. Sometimes when a government has a losing hand or it does not get what it wants in a treaty, then the government does not accede to that treaty, regardless of whether it is about firearms, military equipment export controls, or financial regulations. Governments choose at the time of signing whether they agree with the principles within the treaty and whether they can actually get it ratified by their parliaments, hopefully. One would hope that they would then turn to their parliament for that second step.

    I want to give an example. If, for our anniversary—and we have tried to do this before and ran out of time—I go out and buy a Beretta shotgun, a very specific one, an A400 Xtreme 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun at Cabela's in Calgary, for $2,200, and we decide we would like to go for a weekend of duck hunting, I would become the end user, as covered by the treaty and by this legislation.

    The government would then keep a record of me, having purchased this firearm, and would then notify the Italian government about my purchase. Now, that is a gun registry. Where is the concern for privacy laws? Why does the Italian government need to know whether I own that particular Beretta shotgun? I would like to know. Where is the concern about the privacy of Canadian gun owners, when their information will be transferred in that fashion to another government? I know that NATO countries are participating in this. I will mention that afterwards.

    What we are seeing through this Arms Trade Treaty, and specifically this legislation, is a two-tier system. There is one for the despots and tyrants of the world, and one for law-abiding democracies of the world.

    Let us remember the earlier debate just a few days on Bill C-21, when we talked about privacy rights and customs control with the United States. One party was particularly worried on this side of the House, the New Democratic Party. It was extremely worried about privacy rights of Canadians.

    What about the privacy rights of lawful gun owners in Canada? What about them? What about when we transfer this information on specifically what they own, how they purchased it, their MasterCard or Visa information, to another government? Why does it need to know?

    The shop owner needs to know, of course, for warranty purposes. If something happens and it is defective, I need to take it back to the shop owner so the manufacturer can fix it.

    That is an example. That is also a dual-use weapon. There could be a military version that is used for training purposes. It could be used for target shooting. Beretta is a manufacturer of a lot of military equipment, and some of it does have a dual use. One purpose is military; one purpose is civilian. I do not see a difference being made here.

    I talked about these two worlds that we are basically creating. Russia and China are not parties to the ATT. Russia is one of the largest exporters in the world, and it did not sign. It exports 39% of its military equipment to India, 11% to China, and 11% to Vietnam, its top three markets. None of those three are signatories to this treaty.

    In the total take of what China exports in military equipment, 35% goes to Pakistan, 20% to Bangladesh, and 16% to Myanmar. Pakistan is not a signatory to this treaty. Bangladesh is a signatory but has not ratified it, so the rules do not apply to it. However, it intends to sign it. Myanmar has not done so either.

    This creates two worlds. One is that in the western world the democracies agree that the arms control should exist and we should know who the end-user is. On principle, I do not disagree with that. It is an important goal to track sales and understand where weapons go, with military equipment being whatever it is on the list, which is why the Canadian government has been doing it, as the member for Durham said, through the Export and Import Permits Act. We have known about this and have been doing it since the 1940s. Therefore, we already know that we track all exports of military equipment using categories negotiated by the World Customs Organization. We have been tracking it with that organization. We have been doing our part and doing what we expect other countries to do now.

    The blanket ban option, as the member for Durham mentioned, is available through the area controls. He mentioned North Korea and Iran, and we can add others to that list. We could add regions to it if that is the desire of the government. It already has that option and mechanism to do so.

    There are also drafting issues with the legislation itself. This is from the Rideau Institute. I know it may seem odd that a Conservative reads something from the Rideau Institute, but I do like to see both sides and the problems that people on the left and the right have with particular legislation. It mentions a drafting issue in proposed section 7 of this legislation, asking why the government is relegating a central provision of the enabling legislation, namely, the legal obligation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs when assessing export permits, to the regulations. All of those criteria are in the law right now, but they are being moved into the regulations.

    I mentioned this before at committee in regard to other pieces of legislation. I was on the foreign affairs committee, but I have moved to the Standing Committee on Finance. At many of the committees I have been substituted in, I have mentioned that more should be in statute than in regulation and that more should be decided by the House and that other place than by government ministers sitting around a small table. More voices, not less, should have a say on what the categories and the criteria should be, especially for something like the export and import of military equipment. That is a drafting issue that I have, and I have mentioned the others that I have.

    If the government wants to say it is on the side of lawful gun owners, it could have introduced a greater clarity clause, amended the preamble, and written it into law. However, it chose not to. That was a choice it made. The government could issue as many news releases, make as many speeches, and make as many Facebook posts as it wants, but it does not change the fact that there is no difference made between the manufacturer of equipment for military and civilian purposes in the law. The manufacturer is the same. The equipment is made in the same place.

    It is not the principle of arms control we disagree with. Of course, people agree with controlling the movement of military equipment to other countries. That is why we have been doing it since the 1940s. What the Conservatives fervently disagree with is that there is no protection for lawful gun owners in the legislation or in the treaty itself. Those are serious issues.

    The summary provided for this legislation talks about fines being increased, about the term “broker” and how brokers will now have to get permission to be the in-between in the sales of military equipment. It talks about a report having to be tabled in the House that will define the military exports in the previous year. However, as the New Democrats have suggested, the United States will not be included in it because it is a trusted ally. I agree that it is a trusted ally; it is the second greatest democracy in the world after our own here in Canada. The government replaced some of the requirements that only countries that Canada has an intergovernmental arrangement with may be added to the automatic firearms country control list. By a requirement, a country may be added to this list only on the recommendation of the minister after consultation with the Minister of National Defence. Again we have more ministers deciding things and Parliament finding out afterward what is going on. I would much rather that we found out first and decide in the House first what the rules will be and how things should be.

    After having returned from the summer recess, it was interesting for me to realize when the parliamentary secretary was speaking that I missed this part of my day and debating him in the House, where he usually brings his A game.

     I enjoyed campaigning in Winnipeg over the summer and hearing from the constituents in the different ridings. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that he is open to debate and continuing this. However, just before we returned, the government House leader threatened during a CTV or CBC interview to move more time allocation in this session to achieve its mandate, but the parliamentary secretary is saying something else. I would assume that the member talks to the government House leader on a regular basis. Therefore, I wonder if the government will move time allocation on this a piece of legislation if more members rise in the House to have a say and represent lawful gun owners, hunters, and those who enjoy sports shooting. I met many of them in my riding during the last election. I always tell my campaign volunteers that if a garage door is open and they see someone fixing or cleaning his or her lawfully owned firearm to leave them alone, as it is not the best time to approach someone. It is is better to come back to those houses later on.

    Treaties alone do nothing. They are just pieces of paper. One of the problems with the ratification of the ATT by the government is that the Liberals will push it through because they have the votes. At the end of the day, they will have their way and the lawful gun owners across Canada, who have legitimate concerns, will be the losers.

    I want to ask these questions of the parliamentary secretary who presented this bill in the House on behalf of his minister. How many gun owners did he or the department speak with? How many associations did they speak to and consult with? How many people said it was a great idea, and how many said it was a bad idea, and why? I did not have an opportunity to do ask these questions earlier, because so many members were standing to speak that I was not noticed.

    As the member for Durham so eloquently stated, we already have an effective system for the control of exports and imports of military equipment. Therefore, the main concern on this side of the House is the rights and privileges of lawful gun owners. It is not just the rural members; it is also the urban members. I represent an urban riding. There are a lot of sports shooters in my riding. The Shooting Edge is located across the river just over the edge of my riding in the riding of the member for Calgary Midnapore. It is always packed. There are a lot of people who enjoy the sport and the challenge. However, this treaty will create a registry system. In the example I gave previously, the manufacturer and the government where that manufacturer is based will know that I had purchased a Beretta shotgun from Cabela's at a certain price, what it is, and what it does. However, it also applies to ammunition. Therefore, when the member opposite said that the treaty talks about scopes and small arms, he should look at the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which includes handguns, rifles, or a firearm being held in one or both hands. That is extremely broad.

    Gun owners, who are not dumb and can read legislation, figured out long ago that the Liberal Party of Canada is not on the side of lawful gun owners. The gun registry has cemented that idea. Therefore, I do not understand how the Liberals can defend this piece of legislation and the implementation of a national treaty and say that lawful gun-owning Canadians, who go home every day to their family, will not be impacted by this at all. There is no way they can say that.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be in this chamber again after the summer break. The member gave a long speech. However, the reality is that the preamble of the ATT recognizes the legitimate trade and lawful ownership of guns, including for recreational, cultural, and sporting events. Therefore, my question for the hon. member is straightforward. Can he point to precisely what section in the legislation affects domestic hunters and gun users and does not permit that?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, it is right there, and the issue is registration. Canadians will continue to own firearms even if this law is passed, but the problem will be that the federal government will be telling other governments who owns what and where. The issue is registration, and that is why we are talking about a gun registry through the back door. This is the fundamental issue.

     Gun owners typically do not want that type of information to be shared with the federal government, but it is shared. The police know, and the manufacturers know for warranty purposes. However, it is the centralization of that information, the passing of it on to foreign governments, that is the issue for gun owners.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As he mentioned at the beginning, we may have some differences of opinion. However, I believe that we agree on what we have seen over the past two years, which is Liberal hypocrisy, or the extraordinary ability to say one thing and to do the opposite.

    This is evident especially when the Liberals espouse reconciliation with the First Nations and refuse to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberals also say that they will tackle climate change, but they are not making any significant changes and have even given the green light to some pipelines. They promised electoral reform and then reneged on that promise. They say that they will lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses, then they do nothing and attack our job creators.

    Now, we have a bill meant to ensure that the Arms Trade Treaty is signed and implemented, but ultimately, it is nothing but a hollow shell that will change absolutely nothing. The Liberals, who are happy with the status quo, are again spouting rhetoric.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He is right. Hypocrisy is the central theme of Liberal politics in this country. For the past two years, that is all this side of the House has seen. This government says one thing and then puts forward a completely different bill in Parliament. The Liberals say certain things and then do the opposite.

    I love the member's metaphor of the hollow shell. That is exactly what this bill is for Canadians who are legitimate firearms owners. In our debates in Parliament about this bill, we are going to defend the interests of these people so that the people who the Liberals are standing up for will not be the only ones to be heard. We must also represent the citizens who make the effort to register their firearms and obey the law imposed by the Canadian government. We want to remove this obligation so that a foreign government does not know what types of firearms they buy, and where and why they buy them.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the things we heard in previous speeches was who was all in and who had ratified or signed this agreement. If I remember Woodrow Wilson, one of the great U.S. presidents, he signed an agreement, the League of Nations, but it was never ratified. Perhaps the member could clarify the difference between a U.S. president signing a document and ratifying it.

    Mr. Speaker, one of the basic things in government is that the executive is charged by the legislature, by parliament, or in the case of the United States, Congress, to negotiate a treaty and work out the best terms it can bring back to the legislative bodies to ratify. The G7 includes all of our allies, but in this case, the United States signed a treaty but has not ratified it. Therefore, it is not caught in this system of having to abide by the constraints of the ATT.

     Now, the U.S. has its own export and import controls. It is also one of the world's largest exporters of military equipment. Canada and Canadian manufacturers do a great deal of business with the United States. I know this because my father was a defence contractor for 30 years. He has literally worked on every single naval ship in Canada in the past 30 years. He has also worked on a great deal of American ships on behalf of the U.S. Navy, which his company was working for at the time, to provide equipment, servicing, and technical knowledge. Therefore, we do a great deal of trade with the U.S.

    There are probably hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on that specific type of trade in military equipment across our border. It important to remember there are many such manufacturers. As I said before, there is only one firearms manufacturer in Canada, which is in Ontario, but we have to remember that a lot of the information that will be collected through this registry system will be sent overseas.

    Mr. Speaker, back in 2012, the Conservative Party was in government and Stephen Harper was the prime minister. That is when Canada actually participated in the negotiations for the treaty we are debating today. I would remind the member that the Conservatives voted in favour of it at the UN negotiations.

    Could the member explain what has happened to cause the Conservative Party to want to vote against the treaty today when the Conservatives were at the table in 2012 and voted in favour of it?

    Mr. Speaker, again, the member has confused the difference between a member of the executive and a member of Parliament. He cannot say “we on this side in the government”, because only members on the front bench are members of the executive. They are members of the government. That member is only a supportive member. When asking a question of a member of Parliament such as myself, who did not serve in that Parliament, as to why a government did or did not do something is a question I cannot answer. I was not at the United Nations.

    If I recollect properly, the Conservative government at the time signed on to the treaty but did not ratify it, and there is a fundamental difference. Then we can work on doing things like proper drafting where it will say that lawful gun ownership will be protected, or that registry information will not be collected thereby creating a gun registry through the back door, or where a greater clarity clause will be included. There are mechanisms to do all of these things. The Liberal government has just chosen not to do any of them.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague's remarks are always well-thought-out, entertaining, and full of wise sayings.

    I appreciated his bringing up the concern that the NDP shared about what was not in the bill but would be added in regulation afterward, not in statute. I want to give him the opportunity to perhaps expand on that.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer with a Yiddish proverb, “Half an answer also says something.” I try to provide complete answers as best I can, but I do not hear them from the other side.

    I prefer to see statutes with the least amount of regulation as possible. There is another piece of legislation working its way through the House on cannabis specifically and there are 33 regulations in it.

    It is much better for members of Parliament and senators to decide on criteria, rules, and definitions rather than members of cabinet or officials in departments. It should be left up to the House to decide those types of things. Definitions that are in the dictionary should be decided by the House. We should take back control from the executive and from the civil service and decide for them how they shall do things instead of allowing future regulations to be developed years down the line. That is also a way that governments choose to delay and obstruct.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-47, an issue that is important bill to members on all sides of the House.

    The Arms Trade Treaty holds the record for the quickest entry into force of any arms control treaty. It is a sign of the great importance that the international community attaches to this treaty that it reached the required number of ratifications required to enter into force so quickly.

    The ATT now has 91 state parties and a further 42 states have signed on but have not yet ratified the treaty. It is now time to add Canada to the number of state parties. Canada has long sought to advance export controls as a means of reducing the risks that can come from illicit trade in conventional arms. Joining the ATT, which calls on all state parties to set up effective export controls, is a natural step. Canada's accession to the ATT would further demonstrate to all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, and to the international community our commitment to tackle the risks associated with irresponsible and illicit trade in conventional weapons.

    Canada, however, cannot fulfill the global aims of the ATT alone. Universalization of the ATT is essential to its success. The ATT, if broadly adopted internationally, can contribute substantially to global peace and security.

     Terrorists rely on access to arms largely from illicit or poorly controlled sources. Transnational crime both uses and profits from illicit arms trade. Conflict and instability is fuelled by easy access to conventional weapons. All of these scenarios can and will be reduced, if not stopped, by preventing these weapons from being illegally traded or diverted. This is what the ATT aims to achieve. Ensuring that the treaty fulfills its promise requires the widest possible adherence and effective implementation around the world.

    It is important to note that properly regulated arms trade does not prevent states from meeting their legitimate defence and security needs. The treaty recognizes there is a legitimate place for international arms trade when it is undertaken responsibly and with carefully crafted controls. In accepting international norms for the transfer of arms, ATT state parties have struck a balance between national security interests, including legitimate uses of weapons, and the need to address the consequences of unregulated trade in conventional weapons.

     Canada has a role to play in advancing the universalization of the Arms Trade Treaty. We have already begun to do so by participating as an observer in meetings of ATT state parties and by supporting multilateral efforts to encourage states to ratify or accede to the ATT.

    Our work here today helps set an example for other states considering accession to the ATT.

     First and foremost, we are demonstrating our commitment to full implementation of the treaty. Accession to the ATT is a relatively straightforward process for Canada. We already conform to the spirit of the treaty and have strong export controls in place. However, our government realizes we need to do more. There are elements of the ATT that Canada does not yet fully meet, notably, in regulating brokering, and we have taken a firm position that we will not accede to the ATT until we are fully compliant with it.

    Second, we are committed to implementing the ATT in a manner that not only meets but exceeds the requirements of the treaty. Bill C-47 would further strengthen the rigour of our export controls to meet and, indeed, seek to exceed the obligations of the ATT. We intend to share this experience with other states in forthcoming meetings of the ATT.

     However, leading by example is not enough. All ATT state parties must establish a national system for the control of arms. They must strengthen their laws, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms. Our government recognizes that implementing new legislative systems and export controls can be difficult, particularly for states that may not have significant previous experience in this field.

    We are therefore committed to assisting other states that wish to join the ATT, or that have become state parties or are unable to fully implement the treaty. The government has therefore contributed $1 million to the UN Trust Facility Supporting Cooperation on Arms Regulation. The UNSCAR is a multi-donor flexible-funding mechanism to provide focused and effective support for the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty and the UN program of action on small arms and light weapons. Through this trust facility, Canada is working with other international partners and with the UN to help states accede to and effectively implement the ATT.

     It is unfortunate that, to date, in several regions of the world where flows of conventional weapons contribute to high levels of conflict, there is still a low number of ATT state parties. The UN trust facility can also help these states improve their legislation, end-user controls, and management of weapon stockpiles. Its focus on gender and children further supports the goals of the ATT and can make a real contribution to those who are too often the victims of illicit trade in conventional weapons.

     Of course, accession to the ATT alone cannot stop illicit weapons flows, which is why our government has also partnered with the international NGO small arms survey, contributing $224,000 to survey a list of weapons flow in the key region of the Libya-Chad-Sudan triangle. This survey is a starting point to implement concrete follow-on actions to reduce illicit arms flows along the pathways identified by the small arms survey. In doing so, we will contribute concretely to reducing access to weapons in a region where these conventional arms undermine security and socio-economic development. We will also promote international security by cutting out flows of arms to terrorists and criminal groups in the region.

     Canada can play an important role in promoting the universalization of the ATT. However, we can only do so if we take a leadership role, which our government is doing on a number of fronts, in countering the proliferation of conventional weapons and promoting strong export controls as a means of ensuring that legitimate trade in conventional arms is conducted responsibly, something I am sure all members of the House desire. It is therefore essential that we rejoin our international partners and allies in their collective effort through the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada needs to be at the table.

    It is time for Canada to promote internationally agreed standards for the arms trade that will reduce human suffering, help prevent arms from being used in serious violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law, and combat terrorism and organized crime.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I have to say that I concur with a certain number of the major principles presented in the act. However, the issue is that, despite the bill's good intentions, the details will be laid out in regulations, and members will not have an opportunity to respond because regulations are not subject to a vote in this chamber.

    I would like to hear what the member has to say about accepting certain things that are not directly set out in the legislation. For example, our exports to the United States, which represent 50% of our total exports, will be exempt.

    Therefore, what one cannot do directly with a country that does not respect human rights, one could do indirectly by going through the United States. Does my colleague find this to be acceptable?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's joining the ATT will allow us to conform to all our other G7 countries and allies. We now will have the right and responsibility to own export controls on conventional arms trade and will create the legal obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, before issuing an export permit or brokering a permit, to undertake assessment criteria. That is one big step forward under Bill C-47, something we should all support.

    Mr. Speaker, my question goes back to a previous speech we heard on this matter and the point that was raised. I would like to know what the member's thoughts are on this specific issue. It is that this initiative gives rise to potential concerns regarding privacy.

    One of the groups that I have the honour of working with and have been crisscrossing the country and speaking with is young people. Those young people raise two major concerns, and everywhere we go it is the same. It is regarding privacy and freedom.

     I know from the member's speech and from other speeches by members of the Liberal Party that they do not have those concerns, but we heard earlier that if someone were to walk into Cabela's or a pro shop of some kind and purchase a Beretta, the person's information would then be transferred to another government. Could the member comment and tell Canadians why their personal information should be transferred to another government?

    Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to say is that the Arms Trade Treaty does not and will not affect domestic ownership of firearms in Canada.

    I grew up in northern British Columbia in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is represented by another individual in the House. A number of friends and family members are farmers and hunters who hunt for moose for two weeks with friends. It is something they do annually. It is a big fishing community, so the farmers and fishermen have my full support. Nothing in Bill C-47 would impede their privacy or right to purchase a hunting rifle or shotgun, or whichever weapon they choose to legally buy.

    I would like to clarify and make sure everyone is on the same page with regard to individuals wishing to bring in a weapon from Italy, for example, such as a Beretta. Under Bill C-47, nothing would change in the process. The process remains absolutely unchanged for someone wishing to purchase a weapon in Italy, for example, and bring the weapon here to Canada. That needs to be pointed out to the members on the opposite side, because I keep hearing that and I want to make sure we put on the record that nothing changes.

    Mr. Speaker, it is important to reiterate and outline to Canadians that Canada is the only member of the G7 and our NATO allies that is not a member of this treaty. Not only is this one of the campaign promises that the member and I ran on, but it is also an important reboot of our commitment to the international community. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, this measure would help prevent human rights abuses and protect lives.

    In my colleague's opinion, how is this going to help Canada do its part to prevent human rights abuses, and what are the mechanisms that will clarify what companies can and cannot do when selling arms internationally?

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-47 and Canada's leadership on this issue and coming to the table with international partners not only on this issue but on a number of issues, including climate change, gender parity, and a number of fronts where we are leading the way, is very important. We can be at the table and help end suffering in certain areas of the world where conflict does exist, and a number of mechanisms in the bill will allow us to achieve this goal, which we should pursue on a day-by-day basis.

     It is something that our government remains focused on. It ensures that Canada strengthens existing practices and becomes a party to the ATT, something that the previous government unfortunately failed to live up to its duty to do.

    Mr. Speaker, I have heard time and again today from the Liberal members specific words that this does not affect domestic firearms ownership. They have been very careful. They must have been coached very well on the use of the word “ownership”. What it does affect is firearms purchase in B.C., because proposed subsection 10.3(1) of the act states:

    Then other parts of the act go on to say those records must be kept and made available. I have yet to hear from one of them how this does not create another gun registry, and not just for long guns, but a registry for every gun, because we heard the member for Winnipeg North state that it does include small arms.

    Mr. Speaker, let me walk the member through the process. That is probably the best way I can do it.

    The process that existed under the Conservatives would remain absolutely unchanged under Bill C-47. First, if someone wishes to purchase a weapon in Italy and then bring it to Canada, the individual must be at least 18 years old and have a possession and acquisition licence, a PAL, with a licence privilege for the classified arm that is being imported. Second, all firearms must be declared at Canadian customs and the applicable duties and taxes must be paid. Third, no import authorization for firearms that are not prohibited under Canadian law would be required. If the individual wanted to travel to Italy with a sporting or recreational firearm, he would need to apply for an export permit. This is the system that existed under the former government, and there is absolutely no change to that. It will be the system that exists under the current government, which I have the pleasure of serving with.

    If the Italian government wanted to verify his permit, it would be done without providing personal information. Again, this is the same system that existed under the prior government, and Bill C-47 would not change that system under the current government.

    I hope I have clarified that for the hon. member.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Peace River, who will be speaking after me.

    It is an honour to rise in this place to speak on Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. As the government has signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, this bill takes steps to meet its obligations.

    The Arms Trade Treaty is very broad in scope. It governs the trade in everything from small arms to main battle tanks, as well as combat aircraft. In fact, article 5 of the treaty explicitly requests that the treaty be applied to “the broadest range of conventional arms.” Why illegal hunting rifles should be regulated by the same treaty as an attack helicopter is still a little unclear to me, but perhaps the hon. members opposite have figured it out.

    Given the treaty's unfortunately broad scope, the process of meeting Canada's obligations under this treaty deserves close scrutiny. We need to ensure that law-abiding firearms owners are not negatively impacted.

    To its credit, the Arms Trade Treaty is a treaty with laudable objectives. Preventing and eradicating the illicit trade in conventional arms is undoubtedly an admirable goal. Canada must not stand idly by as weapons flow to conflict zones, where they may be used to inflict horrific abuses on civilian populations and fuel terrorist organizations.

    Conservatives have always been supportive of measures to establish international arms control standards. However, the government's own former minister, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent at the time, stated in June 2016 that “Canada already meets the vast majority of Arms Trade Treaty obligations." He also said, “In fact, the Arms Trade Treaty was designed to bring other countries up to the type of high standard that Canada already applies through its robust export control regime”.

    These remarks do make me wonder at the wisdom of subjecting the arms industry to regulatory upheaval by signing the Arms Trade Treaty and introducing this bill. Apparently Canada was already more than compliant. It is important to remember that major arms exporters such as Pakistan, Russia, and China are not party to the treaty, which will limit its effectiveness in actually controlling the global arms trade.

    It is also notable that contrary to the Liberals' talking points, Canada was not the only holdout on the bill in G7. Our closest trading partner and ally, the United States, has not ratified it, so we are far from alone in abstaining.

     It is also troubling that the treaty's scope is extremely broad. It does not acknowledge the legitimate, lawful ownership of firearms for personal and recreational use. What is in the preamble is not in the treaty.

    Nevertheless, I respect that the government at least has good intentions in contributing to the treaty's stated purposes of international peace, stability, and reducing human suffering.

    With that said, I am the representative of a riding with a large rural population. I must question how lawful firearms could be affected by amendments this bill makes to the Export and Import Permits Act. Legal firearms in Canada are subject to an extensive, strict regulatory regime. The Firearms Act regulates the transportation, storage, and display of legal firearms by individuals. It also mandates the possession and acquisition licence. Further, firearms are currently listed in the Export and Import Permits Act as a controlled import.

    Despite the government's assurance that the proposed changes will not impact the legitimate and lawful use of sporting firearms, the implementation of brokering controls and permits is yet another addition to the substantial regulatory system already in place. The new brokering permits seem to cover everything related to firearms, including accessories such as optics.

    The first question that this bill raises is this: what additional bureaucratic burden might the brokering permit application place on the Canadian firearms industry?

    It remains unclear what specific documentation will be required to apply for the permit. As a first step, the government should provide assurances to firms that are compliant with the existing regulations. They need to know that the new brokering permit requirement will not render them unable to continue their businesses.

    Also notable is the government's commitment to establishing a brokering control list that exceeds the Arms Trade Treaty requirements by covering more goods and technology.

    I assume this promise is an indication of the government's earnest desire to contribute to the Arms Trade Treaty objectives. However, the government should be aware that this promise raises yet more questions for lawful Canadian firearms owners and organizations who are unclear on what the ultimate result of a more expansive list might be.

    Bill C-47 would also require that all documentation pertaining to the application for a brokering permit be retained for six years, yet again the bill leaves the question unanswered as to what documentation will be required.

    We only recently removed the wasteful debacle that was the long-gun registry. I am sure the government can understand that the lawful firearms community is wary of any provision that mandates data collection without giving any indication of what data will actually be collected.

    For example, will any consumer data form part of the documentation required to obtain a permit? Here, too, there is an opportunity for the government to provide some assurance to the lawful firearms community. The government should give us some sense of how the bill meets the Arms Trade Treaty obligations while still respecting legitimate trade and use of legal hunting and sporting firearms.

    As the bill stands, we do not know what documentation will be required to obtain a brokering permit under the new system. We do not know what goods or technology might be added to the brokering control list at the minister's discretion. We do not know what documentation will need to be retained for the mandated six year period. This makes it difficult to appraise its potential impact on the lawful firearms community.

    The government's former minister of foreign affairs stated that brokering controls would be a new regulatory area for Canada, and a good example of where we are adding rigour to the existing system. The rigorous new regulatory area being added to the existing program needs far more explanation.

    With all of these questions up in the air, it is incredible the Liberals conducted little or no consultation with the lawful Canadian firearms community before introducing this legislation.

    Beyond the unanswered questions I have already asked, does the government know the cost to the firearms industry of adapting to the new brokering control permits? There is a serious potential for the loss of jobs as manufacturers and importers transition to the new regulations.

    If the government had consulted with lawful firearms community stakeholders, it would know that the questions I pose in my remarks are important to that community. It is a large Canadian demographic already subject to a strict regulatory environment.

    Our former Conservative government declined to sign the Arms Trade Treaty specifically because there were concerns about how it might affect lawful and responsible firearms owners. The United Nations refused to exempt civilian firearms from the treaty. The government's own assessment found that Canada was already meeting the vast majority of Arms Trade Treaty obligations, but still the Liberals have opted to sign on.

    The government likes to say the treaty will have no impact on law-abiding civilian firearms usage. Why then are civilian firearms even included in the treaty? Why was the United Nations against exempting them? It makes one wonder.

    As a result of the Arms Trade Treaty not explicitly protecting the rights of law-abiding firearms owners, it is the responsibility of the government to provide assurance it will meet its obligations without overly impinging on the lawful Canadian firearms community. I look forward to the government doing the right thing, and demonstrating some openness to working with lawful firearms community stakeholders.

    This legislation is designed to meet the obligations of a treaty that has lumped in hunting rifles with large calibre artillery systems. The government needs to listen to lawful firearm owners to mitigate the potential damage the bill might do.

    Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the member's concern over domestic implications here, we have been firmly assured there would be no such implications to domestic users. Canada has, however, in the past 25 years sold $5.8 billion in weapons to countries with questionable human rights records. Acceding to this treaty should have a profound effect over reducing such undesirable trade.

    Would the member opposite not agree that acceding to this treaty would be a good and desirable public outcome?

    Mr. Speaker, it is always something we would want to do, as I said in my statement. We are absolutely opposed to weapons used by terrorists in areas of the world where destruction is happening.

    In this country, we have a tremendous number of people who use them appropriately and very lawfully. Those are the rights we are looking to protect, of those people who are lawful, legal gun owners in this country. Those are the rights we want to protect.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question.

    I listened carefully to my colleague's speech as he talked about the positives and negatives of the bill that is before us. I am concerned not only about the positives and negatives of the bill but also about what is missing from it. I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the fact that the bill makes no mention of the export assessment criteria.

    Does my colleague agree that these criteria should be an integral part of the bill rather than part of future regulations?

    Mr. Speaker, it is always troubling in the sense of when broad policy documents are passed as laws, and the regulations are written later without that unknown.

    That is one of the biggest challenges that lawful, legal gun owners have with this particular piece of legislation. It is the unknown in the sense of those regulations, the requiring of documentation, and privacy. It would be great if we were able to see some of that information as we go forward, rather than it being done afterward.

    Mr. Speaker, one issue that the member raised was the list of controlled goods, and some questions and concerns about what is on it. The member should know that the list of controlled goods is available online. It is the same list that was used under the former government.

    Does the member feel that the list of controlled goods used under his government went too far, and does he disagree with the list of controlled goods, and the process for determining that list that his government used when it was in power two years ago?

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been very good at delivering questions, and I appreciate that. When the list includes large artillery pieces of equipment, tanks, as well as hand guns and small weapons, that is a little concerning.

    When the United Nations would not exempt legal, lawful gun owners of those small guns in this country, that is the problem. It would not exempt it, and that is why we did not sign it before. It is in the list, and that is our problem.

    Mr. Speaker, I had a private member's motion in the last Parliament. It specifically addressed the ATT and our not signing on to the particular agreement, and not being a part of it in the form that it was currently in. It was Motion No. 589 which stated:

    I mention that today because the same problems that existed when I presented my private member's motion in the last Parliament still exist to this very day. What needs to be understood by a couple of our friends who maybe are not part of the firearms community out in Canada today, and they are watching, is that Canada already has an extremely good system in terms of monitoring the sales and permitting sales of military equipment around the world.

    The trade controls bureau regulates the Export and Import Permits Act, which, since 1947, has allowed the minister to prevent the supply of military equipment to countries for a variety of reasons, including security threats, internal and external conflicts, or sanctions by the United Nations. That is already in place, and Canada already abides by that and uses it effectively.

    I will bring the question back to the firearms community. Why not exclude the firearms community from this particular Arms Trade Treaty? We would maybe have broad agreement throughout the firearms community that it would not be such a bad thing, but since it is not exempted, it would become a big problem for firearms owners.

     I will bring this all back to pre-election 2015. The Liberal Party promised it would not reinstitute a firearms registry in Canada. It was a very hot topic for the Liberals. There were many rural Canadians who were upset by a firearms registry, and it was a big problem for the government because the prior Liberal government was the one that brought it in.

    It was not a very popular piece of legislation. Pre-election, the Liberals said they were not going to do this again. The minister, by all his actions, is showing the exact opposite. He is just trying to do it through the back door, and we have mentioned it many times. My colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe and I mentioned this before when this was brought forward in the House. With Bill C-47, there is a real desire to bring in a back door registry without saying so.

    I will read out some of the parts of what this bill would actually require. This is Bill C-47 for all those in Canada watching. They can see the actual act. I am going to read what it would require of business owners who sell long guns and firearms. It would require them to keep records.

     It states:

    If company X is a company that sells firearms, it might export and sell them to somebody from the U.S. who buys them. This would then apply to that company's database. I might go in and buy a firearm from this particular company, and this is a question that some have asked. What limitations are there to access the records of that particular company? Are all records accessible? For every firearm that was bought and sold, is the record accessible? Because the bill does not exclude firearms owners or long-gun owners, it really says that all databases would be made available to the minister.

    I will talk about some more things in the actual act, and why we have problems with it. Under electronic records, the bill states:

    Those are computers, so they need to be accessible. Under inadequate records, the bill states:

    Those are not some records; those are any records.

    The period for retention is another issue with firearms communities. Is it just for a week? Is it just for a certain period of time? It is actually much longer than a week. The bill states:

    It could be up to seven years. Firearms companies such as a little local firearms store in my community's backcountry, like Corlanes in Dawson Creek, because they are exporters and importers, would be required by the minister of public safety and this Parliament to have accessible records of those sales. It sure sounds like a firearms registry to me.

    Let us get to the bottom of it, where this is all coming from is demand by the minister. The bill states:

    There it is. There is the back door registry. The minister has already talked about, in another piece of legislation that is coming before us very soon, handing over the previous firearms registry data to a province in this country. It seems that on one hand he reassured his electorate, especially those in Saskatchewan who sent him back to Ottawa, that there would never be a firearms registry brought forward again by a Liberal government, but here we have two examples—today, in Bill C-47 and next in Bill C-58—of doing the exact opposite. That is why our firearms community is so concerned.

    We saw it was ineffective the last time it was brought in. It was very expensive and it was putting the focus on the wrong individuals. I am a firearms owner myself. I do it lawfully. I have been trained in how to safely fire and handle restricted firearms, non-restricted firearms, etc. For people who obey the law and do it properly, this is unneeded attention on a community of people who safely and lawfully buy and sell firearms and do it as part of our history.

    I have a pin on my lapel. I am co-chair of the parliamentary outdoor caucus. I do that with my colleague across the way. We support hunters, anglers, outfitters, trappers, etc. We support the historic events that really started this country. It started with the fur trade. A lot of my constituents still hunt, trap, and fish. I like to do that when I have time to get out there. These kinds of laws have a negative effect on those communities, because we put the focus on them as if they are criminals already, when they have done nothing wrong. All they have done is chosen to buy a firearm to go hunt and provide food for their family.

    The crux of my argument today is that the Liberal government said it was not going to bring in a firearms registry. The Liberals said it over and over again, because it was a big deal to a lot of their constituents. A lot of rural folks elected Liberal members of Parliament with the reassurance that it would not happen, and here we have a minister and a government that is trying to do that. From one back door or another, it is determined to get a firearms registry re-established in the country.

    We need to come into this with our eyes wide open. Voters who are watching this today need to understand this is a big deal. This is why we did not accede to the Arms Trade Treaty when we were in government. It was because it did not have exclusions for firearm owners written within our particular act. My private member's bill spoke to that. It was one more reason why we did not accede to it.

    I challenge the government to have a sober second thought and look at this again. We implore the government not to accede to the ATT. We already have enough regulations and laws that get to the same end the ATT is trying to get to in terms of selling military equipment across the world. The Liberals should especially think about the firearm owners to whom they promised they would not start a registry. Hopefully, the government will not support this legislation today.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and good friend for his intervention and advocacy, particularly with the outdoor caucus work he does, bringing a lot more Canadians into contact with their Parliament on issues that concern them. There is one thing I want to raise and would like him to comment on.

    The parliamentary secretary, in his speech on this bill, suggested that any concerns, even minor concerns, from the hunting community, sports shooters, even indigenous Canadians who engage in those things sometimes, on their constitutional rights to hunt, are “bogus”. This is his language. I would like the member to comment, in light of the fact that the previous government suggested to the UN that a carve out specifically in the treaty, carving out the lawful use of firearms by hunters and sports shooters, was rejected.

    Would the member comment on how unfair it is for the parliamentary secretary to suggest that concern about the rejection of that carve out is somehow bogus? That is divisive language that often pits rural Canada against urban Canada. Could the member, in his experience working with the community, comment on just that style of approach?

    Mr. Speaker, “bogus” is certainly language I would not use to refer to the concerns of this community. We are talking about doctors, lawyers, professionals, carpenters, and mechanics who are all part of the hunting community and are advocates against what this particular piece of legislation is trying to collect. I suggest that the government really needs to listen a lot more closely to that particular community. The government made promises to this particular community that it was not going to bring in a registry, and by bringing Bill C-47 in through the back door, that is exactly what it is doing.

    This seems to be the government's attitude when it chooses language like the word “bogus” with this particular community. This community has said loudly that it does not want a registry, and I think it is prepared to speak loudly again. I just hope the member is prepared for that.

    Mr. Speaker, when I look at the legislation before the House, as someone who represents a partially rural riding and whose constituency office is across the hall from the licensing agency for hunters in my province, I am quite satisfied that this legislation addresses two key components that allow us to live up to our multilateral commitments to the international community: first, controlling the brokerage and, second, looking at our export controls to make sure we meet our international commitments to help control the international distribution of illegal arms. I do not see anything here that directly affects domestic hunters and gun users. They are protected. I am satisfied that the preamble recognizes legitimate trade and lawful ownership of recreational, cultural, and sporting activities associated with guns. I am quite satisfied that it does this.

    Can the member point to something particular in the legislation that actually affects the hunters and gun users themselves? I feel that we have struck the right balance here.

    Mr. Speaker, the member asked, so I will give him that information. I read it already. I do not know if he was in the House when I read it earlier. This is Bill C-47.

    I am sorry; I cannot recognize whether he was in the House or not. It was my mistake.

    Mr. Speaker, irrespective of whether I was here, I certainly did hear it. My question is actually about the gun users and owners themselves, not the brokers.

    Mr. Speaker, I will answer his question. I just was not sure, because I read it out before. I was just being clear.

    This is the actual bill. I could read what it states under, “Keeping records”, but I do not have the time to do that. I have it right here and it is even highlighted in yellow. After we have finished the debate, I will show the member the actual problems with the firearms community. There are two key parts. It is the fact that these companies would now be required to collect records of firearms sales, which includes long guns and handguns. That is a registry. When we got rid of the firearms registry, it was a big deal to a lot of Canadians. The Liberal government said it would never re-establish the long-gun registry. This is establishing a new long-gun registry.

    If that is the question, I think you need to go back and talk to some of your firearms owners and maybe some in your firearms community and ask if it is a big deal that they collect records again, because I am pretty sure it is.

    Before we go on to debate, I want to remind hon. members to speak in the third person and not directly to the speaker. I appreciate their taking the time to speak to me, but I do not believe the question or comments are really directed at me.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Provencher.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to stand in the House again after a wonderful summer break to address the House on a very important issue. This is an issue that the Liberals sprinkled out at a time when they were introducing bills with much more severe and longer impacting consequences, with the hope that probably this bill would just be swept under the carpet and maybe not given the attention it deserved. In fact, I believe it does deserve a lot of attention.

    By way of background, in 2016, the Liberals announced that Canada would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. Subsequently, Bill C-47 was introduced to that end. The bill would effect changes in several different ways. First, it would establish controls over brokering in military goods between two countries outside of Canada. Second, it would create a legal obligation for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to consider certain assessment criteria before authorizing permits. Finally, it would increase the maximum fine under the Export and Import Permits Act from $25,000 to $250,000 for summary conviction offences. However, since the 1940s, under the Trade Controls Bureau, we already have provisions for Canada to do exactly what the bill is addressing.

    Before I go any further, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

    As hon. members will recall, our previous Conservative government refused to sign the Arms Trade Treaty, because we were concerned about how the treaty would effectively be responsible to law-abiding gun owners. These concerns are just as real today as they were at that time. Conservatives have always supported efforts to establish international standards for the trade of arms, which help prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflict and encourage terrorism or organized crime. Unfortunately, without providing protection for law-abiding gun owners included in the text of the ATT, I cannot support the bill.

    In fact, we already have in place the things that the bill attempts to do. Our government is already abiding by that through the Trade Controls Bureau, as I mentioned earlier. We take very seriously the trade of arms between other countries, to make sure they are not going into regimes that support terrorism or that fuel conflict by way of countries that should not be receiving these types of arms.

    As parliamentarians, our first responsibility is to protect the rights of Canadians. The Government of Canada has a duty to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not outsourced to foreign countries. Unfortunately, the Liberals are refusing to acknowledge the potential infringements on law-abiding gun owners that could come as a result of participation in the ATT. Bill C-47 would require records to be kept on Canadian firearm owners who have imported or exported their guns or else face stiff fines of up to $250,000 or even imprisonment. This provision would have a direct impact on those who participate in lawful recreational and hunting activities that involve firearms.

    What is most disconcerting about Bill C-47 is that it represents an attempt by the Liberal government to revive the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry, which was eliminated by our previous Conservative government. Bill C-47 would allow for the government to create regulations that demand firearm importers and exporters to report and keep all of their import registry data for at least—

    I want to remind hon. members in the House. It is nice to see everybody getting along, but there are a lot of side discussions going on, and I am having a hard time hearing this very interesting discourse from the hon. member.

    Now that I have reminded everyone, I am sure everything will be quiet, and I will let the hon. member continue.

    Mr. Speaker, I, too, thought what I had to say was very interesting. I appreciate the fact that you have brought attention to that.

    Bill C-47 would also allow governments to create regulations that would demand firearm importers to report and keep all their import registry data for at least six years and have it available to government. In its simplest form, this is the start of a backdoor firearms registry. It would force the information of individuals to be registered with importers and sellers and be available to government. It sounds pretty much like a registry to me.

    Moreover, these proposals will add costs onto the manufacturers and distributors of legal firearms, which will ultimately be passed down to the consumers, the purchasers of firearms. Somebody has to pay for this extra cost that will be incurred with Bill C-47.

    When our previous Conservative government was in office, we listened to Canadians and eliminated the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. Instead of treating law-abiding firearms owners like criminals, we repealed the requirement to register non-restricted fire arms, long guns, rifles, shotguns, and provided for the destruction of all records pertaining to that registry held by the Canadian Firearms Registry under the control of the chief firearms officer.

    While we removed the need to hold a registration certificate for non-restricted firearms, this did not change the requirement for individuals to hold a valid firearms licence in order to acquire or possess a firearm. They also had to pass the required Canadian firearms safety course, undergo a screening process, and obtain a registration certificate for restricted and prohibited firearms such as handguns. Through these changes, we recognized that recreational firearms users were not criminals. At the same time, we ensured that appropriate measures were taken to maintain public safety through licensing and gun safety education.

    Acceding to the ATT could impose another burdensome bureaucracy on Canada that would mirror the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry our previous Conservative government eliminated. The same problems that we had with the gun registry, the lack of accountability, the immense costs, and the overall uselessness of it, are highly likely again under the ATT regime, unless amendments are made to it.

    Interestingly, through Bill C-47, the Liberals are trying to bring back the registry through the backdoor with as little attention as possible.

     The Liberals have a tendency to do this, introduce proposals they know will not be accepted by Canadians at a time when they hope it will go unnoticed. Take their recent massive tax hikes on local small businesses, farmers, and professionals as an example. The Liberals waited until the middle of the summer to sprinkle out these proposals when they figured Canadians were enjoying time with family and friends or perhaps were out of town on vacation. Of course, they made the consultation period run right through the fall harvest season, which would severely impact the ability of farmers to interact and contribute to the discussion on this very important proposal before us.

    In a similar fashion, when this backdoor gun registry bill was introduced, the Liberals hoped that no one would hear about it. They introduced it at the same time as their marijuana legislation, both Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, the day before the Easter long weekend. The expectation here was clearly that this bill would fall under the radar while the marijuana bills dominated the discussion and the news cycle.

     Whenever the Liberals insist on pushing forward with an agenda they know Canadians will not stand behind, this is their standard way of going about it. However, if they know Canadians do not support this legislation, as evidenced by the fact they are trying to keep it as low profile as possible, why are they trying to pass it at all?

     Canada's export regime as it stands today is already among the strongest in the world. I think the Liberals would agree on that point. Canadian governments of all political stripes have always ensured Canadian values are reflected in export decisions and have taken steps to prevent illicit transfers that fuel conflict, encourage terrorism, or organized crime. It seems to me this is another Liberal solution in search of a problem. If it were benign, it would be one thing, but because it has the potential to negatively impact law-abiding Canadian farmers and hunters, we as Conservatives must speak out against this.

    The Conservatives have taken a clear and principled stand. We believe that any arms trade treaty should recognize and acknowledge the legitimacy of lawful ownership of firearms by responsible citizens for their personal and recreational use. This includes Canadian heritage activities, such as hunting, sport shooting, and collecting. More than that, the legitimacy of these activities are recognized around the world, including those state parties to the ATT. Our previous Conservative government insisted that this be a part of any serious treaty on this subject.

    For the Liberals to move ahead with this legislation without having received such a basic concession is disappointing. The Prime Minister may believe it will help him secure the United Nations Security Council seat that he wants so badly, but to do so would be at the expense of the rights of Canadian gun owners.

    Mr. Speaker, continuing on from the conversation that we had earlier with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies and now the member for Provencher, I would share the concerns held by my colleagues if I felt there would be an increased burden on gun users and gun owners.

     However, when I look at the legislation itself, we are talking about brokers and export controls. These are not things that the ordinary, everyday gun user or gun owner is concerned about. Looking at the type of information we are talking about collecting, it is my understanding that this information has been collected for over 70 years. Since 1942, the Government of Canada has required records on export and import of arms.

    When I look at what the legislation would do, it would allow us to engage multilaterally with our partners to the Arms Trade Treaty. It is a wonderful thing. I do not see an increased burden in any way. If we look at the risk associated with information that was collected in the past, under the previous government, and what is proposed under this legislation, it is the same.

    Again, I would ask the member opposite, as I did the previous member, this. What exactly is here now that you disagree with, that you simply agreed with before? It is same information that has always been collected.

    I want to remind everyone to address their questions through to the Chair and not directly.

    Mr. Speaker, what impact will this have on Canadians?

    The extra burden of keeping those additional records, storing them and maintaining them for six years, is an additional burden. If it were not an additional burden, it would not be something that would be extra. There is going to be a cost to that. There will also be a cost to manufacturers to ensure they are compliant as well.

    Any additional costs that will be incurred by exporters, importers, or manufacturers will ultimately to be passed on to the consumer, to law-abiding Canadians who want to do their sport shooting, hunt, or perhaps just want to be collectors. That is a cost and a burden that will be incurred.

    It is also a registry that is currently not being kept. Under the Trade Controls Bureau, we have processes in place for the sale and purchase of arms to other countries. We also have processes and procedures in place under that bureau that protect the integrity of the sale of arms to other nations.

    Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to have side conversations with other members in the Conservative caucus.

    To me, it is quite clear that Bill C-47 is entirely about arms trade. It is entirely about export of armaments. It has no application to domestic sale of long guns or guns of any kind.

    It is unfortunate we are having this conversation in the House, because I think it could unnecessarily alarm people, including people in my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are long-gun owners and gun owners and who do not want these imaginary burdens that the Conservatives imagine are created by the bill.

    I will try to explain it, if I can, for my friends in the Conservative caucus. When we go through the bill, the structure is clear. Everything in the bill is related to amendments to permit accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. My question for the Liberals, if I had a chance to put it, would be about the huge loopholes that have been left on the sale of arms.

     However, going back to the concern about legitimate hunters, “broker” is defined only in terms of export and import of armaments. The list that is concerning people, which is found in paragraph 10.3 of the bill, “keeping records”, only applies to those, under the purpose of the bill, keeping records necessary to determine if they have complied with an act which is about the export of armaments that could be used by terrorist organizations around the world.

    If my hon. colleague were satisfied, as I am satisfied, that there was no way this bill could have any impact on domestic owners, would the member please agree that it would be better for the world to limit the sale of armaments?

    Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is always very thorough in her evaluation of bills, and I have great respect for the work she does in the House.

    However, I disagree with her on the point that it does not affect individuals and organizations. Section 7.1(1) in the agreement clearly states that individuals and organizations will be subject to that agreement, so that will directly require the information of individuals to be recorded and kept in a registry.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act and the Criminal Code. In essence, what Bill C-47 would do is implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which was signed by the government.

    Without more, I oppose Bill C-47 for two broad reasons.

     First, I am not satisfied that the Arms Trade Treaty and Bill C-47, the implementation of that treaty, would actually strengthen Canada's arms control regime.

     Second, I oppose the bill because of serious concerns and questions that have been asked by law-abiding firearms owners and users in our country, concerns and questions that the Liberal government has refused to answer with respect to whether the legislation would result in a backdoor gun registry.

    I will first address the issue about whether the bill would actually strengthens Canada's arms control regime. The fact is that Canada has long had a very strong arms control regime. It is a regime that has been in place for about 70 years. It is a regime that is robust. Canada is a leader when it comes to arms control with respect to our export regime.

    As the hon. member for Durham highlighted in some detail, the scope of the that regime includes the Trade Controls Bureau, which has operated since 1947. What does the Trade Controls Bureau do? It governs, tracks, and controls the export of military weapons and arms out of Canada. It has worked very well. Under the import and export regime that Canada has with respect to arms control, the items subject to control are listed. They include military weapons, nuclear, chemical, biological materials, among other things. Canada does not just list those items subject to control; it tracks the export of controlled items. We track it by way of the CBSA, through Statistics Canada, and we track it in a very robust way, one that is consistent with international standards, including the World Customs Organization. That is the standard by which Canada tracks. While Canada tracks, one of the things lacking in the Arms Trade Treaty, as the member for Durham correctly pointed out, is transparency and tracking.

     We then not only have the Trade Controls Bureau, we also have what is called an “Area Control List” that, by way of order in council, can block the export of not only weapons but anything from Canada to another country. Right now, North Korea is on that list.

     What we have is again a very strong and very robust regime. It is one that has worked and is working. There are questions about whether this bill would in fact improve upon what Canada has. However, in some respects it would water it down. I cannot support a piece of legislation that arguably would weaken the very good regime that Canada already has.

    As has been raised by a number of hon. members in the House, there are serious questions about whether this bill would, through the back door, re-establish a gun registry. We know of course what a disaster the long-gun registry was, as introduced by the previous Liberal government. It was a registry that targeted law-abiding firearms owners, cost the taxpayers of Canada some $2 billion, and did absolutely nothing to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. On the contrary, it in fact made the situation worse by creating a black market for various firearms. When the firearms community, every firearms organization in Canada, unanimously raises questions about whether this bill would impede law-abiding firearms owners by way of a back-door firearms registry, those concerns have to be taken seriously. However, instead of listening to the firearms community, instead of consulting with law-abiding firearms owners, the current government would prefer just to dismiss them out of hand.

     I heard my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Fredericton, when he stood up in the House. I respect that hon. member, but he asserted that the claim that acceding to the treaty would create a back-door gun registry was phony and bogus. I say let us look at the language of the Arms Trade Treaty and Bill C-47. Let us start with article 2.

    Article 2 states:

    It then lists a whole series of categories. At the end, article 2.1(h) refers to small arms. Small arms include any firearm that could be operated and used by an individual, so it would include a rifle or any number of firearms that are lawfully used by Canadians for civilian recreational purposes every single day.

    We then go to article 12, which says:

    As I mentioned, article 2 includes small arms.

    We then go to Bill C-47 and look at the substance of it, and we see, among other sections of this bill, proposed subsection 10.3(6), which says that every person or organization under the act, which would include a broker, is required to retain records for a period of some six years.

    Bill C-47 goes a lot further than that because it provides for the specific manner in which those electronic records must be kept by way of an electronic database.

    I see I am out of time, but it raises very serious questions about this issue. I would be happy to pick up from where I left off in questions and answers.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member understands that the treaty really deals with the illicit conventional arms trade. That illicit arms trade puts vulnerable people at risk around the world. The ATT is the only treaty that really tries to tackle the issue of illicit arms trading.

    How can Canada contribute to fighting the illicit arms trade if we are not party to the only treaty that addresses this issue?

    Mr. Speaker, simply put, it is not this bill that will do that. This bill will potentially target law-abiding firearms holders.

    As I alluded to, Canada already has a very robust regime in place, one that is working. Second, on the issue of whether it would establish a back door firearms registry, one of the questions I would have of the government is where is the language in the treaty that would exclude firearms for civilian purposes? It is nowhere to be found. What we have are clauses that are vague, overly broad, ambiguous, and raise more questions than answers.

    The hunters, anglers, and fishermen of our country that use firearms for recreational purposes every single day deserve a lot more from the government.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to expand on some of the concerns we have heard today around the fact that a lot of the guts of the bill will be brought in as regulations after the bill receives royal assent, regulations on some of the important criteria the minister will be obligated to use to assess these export applications.

    Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point because what we are actually going to see in the bill with respect to the export regime is less transparency, less openness, and less accountability than the existing regime in place.

    Again, it raises questions about Bill C-47. It is a bill that arguably waters down the existing regime, and as the hon. member points out, raises questions about openness and transparency with respect to exports.

    Mr. Speaker, we hear many Liberal members, including the parliamentary secretary, suggesting that even a simple question on the application of the bill to hunters and sport shooters is somehow, to quote the parliamentary secretary, “bogus” or “phony”. This member and a number of other members have raised some valid questions that hunters and sport shooters have because a carve-out for civilian users was rejected in the negotiation of this treaty.

    I would like my friend to comment on how a simple question about the bill's application is a bogus argument that creates divisions between rural and urban Canadians and really belittles debate in the House. Could the member comment on that?

    Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There has been a lack of a carve-out. As a result, it has created some very legitimate concerns in light of the vague and ambiguous language contained in the bill.

    The Liberals should not have signed the treaty before they got that carve-out. That was the position of our government. Even if they went ahead and signed the treaty, at the very least they could have included language in Bill C-47 to raise objections to any interpretation that would result in the application of the treaty to civilian recreational firearms users in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

    I am happy to rise here today to speak in this debate on Bill C-47, the legislation that is meant to meet Canada's obligation to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty.

     This treaty came into force in 2014. The previous Conservative government refused to join the majority of countries around the world and sign this treaty. Indeed, it was the only government within NATO and the G7 to refuse to do so. I and my colleagues within the NDP are happy to see the government now move ahead to join most of the civilized world in acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty. Therefore, we will support sending Bill C-47 on to committee. We have several concerns about the bill that I hope will be fixed with amendments in committee, and I will expand on a couple of those concerns.

    I represent the riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, which has a long history of pacifism. Part of that history involves the strong Doukhobor communities in parts of the West Kootenay and Kootenay Boundary regions. The Doukhobors came to Canada in the early 1900s, seeking a refuge to practise their belief in pacifism and living their motto of “peace and toil”. In the 1960s, another wave of pacifists came to southern B.C. in the form of American draft dodgers, who left their homes and families to avoid conscription into the Vietnam War.

    This history has created several very active, key groups promoting peace in my riding. There is the Boundary Peace Initiative, and the Kootenay region branch of the United Nations Association. Another peace initiative in my riding is the Mir Centre for Peace at Selkirk College in Castlegar, which provides a diploma program in peace and justice studies, as well as an international program in unarmed civilian peacekeeping. These groups and others like them are celebrating the International Day of Peace today across Canada. While I wish I could be with them in person in the riding, I am happy to celebrate the day with this debate. I am proud to represent a riding with such strong interest in peaceful solutions to world conflicts and to speak here today about efforts to regulate the trade in military material.

    However, residents of my riding are not alone in their concern about arms trade. Polls show that the majority of Canadians do not want our country to export military equipment to countries with a history of human rights abuses. Many Canadians would be surprised to learn that our country has almost doubled its military exports in the last 10 years and that we are the world's second-largest arms dealer to the Middle East. This kind of involvement in such an explosive region makes it difficult to increase our role as a trusted peacemaker anywhere in the world.

    Where does Bill C-47 fall short?

    First of all, exports from Canada to the United States would be exempt from the Export and Import Permits Act as amended by the bill. This is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Arms Trade Treaty, which calls for a complete and transparent coverage of all military exports. Fully half of our military exports go to the United States. The government has argued that the U.S. is a trusted ally and we should not need to regulate arms trade to our neighbour, but I see two problems with that stance. First, the U.S. has not ratified this Arms Trade Treaty and so has no obligation to track trade in military products. Second, the present administration in the U.S., I think it is fair to say, has a very different stance on trade with a number of countries that Canada has expressed concerns about. Therefore, material and parts for military systems sold by Canadian companies to the U.S. could be incorporated into equipment there and sold anywhere in the world without it being tracked through the Arms Trade Treaty.

    Another concern we have is that important parts of our legal obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty will only be enacted through regulation. These include the legal obligation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to assess permits using certain criteria.

    Unfortunately, these criteria will only be revealed through regulation after the bill receives royal assent. In other words, we here in this place will not have any role in debating those criteria, and they could arguably be an important part of the law.

    As I said at the beginning, the NDP supports the bill at this stage. Any efforts to control, regulate, and monitor the export of military equipment can only be a step forward to a more peaceful world.

    The NDP has a strong history of supporting and promoting initiatives for peace around the world, and we were very disappointed when the Liberal government refused to take part in the recent UN negotiations toward a nuclear weapons ban treaty.

    The Prime Minister said in question period earlier this week that the NDP is always ready with “well-meaning platitudes”, or at least that is how it was translated in Hansard. In the verbal translation we heard here, that came out as “we were ready with lovely words”. What the NDP is concerned about with respect to Bill C-47 is that it is in fact just lovely words. It does not fully meet the Arms Trade Treaty obligations.

    We hope that the government will seriously consider amendments at committee stage to fix these problems so that Canada can fully live up to its agreements on the world stage and truly make the world a more peaceful place.

    Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned why his party is supporting the bill today, but clearly he has also been paying attention to the debate in the House, and I appreciate that.

    Does my colleague feel the language that the parliamentary secretary used in introducing the bill, when he suggested that basic concerns that some Canadians might have are either “phony” or “bogus”, is a good way to advance questions that Canadians have, such as hunters, sport shooters, and indigenous Canadians, who have a constitutional right to hunt? Answering those questions is a debate we should have as a part of the bill.

    Does he think the tone used by the Liberals with respect to the introduction of the bill seeks to divide the rural parts of Canada that he and I represent from the urban parts?

    Mr. Speaker, I have spoken over the last couple of years with a number of hunting and sport shooting groups in my riding about their concerns with not just this bill but with other bills that they feel are perhaps coming at their rights as gun owners through the back door. I am not really convinced that the bill is set out to do that in a meaningful way, although it might open up that concern.

    We have heard concerns about vague wording. We have heard comments from Conservative members that they would like to see wording within the bill, perhaps in the preamble, that sets this out. I have heard from the Liberals that there is wording in the preamble, but I could not find it myself.

    These are comments that we should hear at committee, and I hope that we can resolve this issue to allay those fears.

    The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay will have three minutes when the House resumes after question period.

    Mr. Speaker, in his last letter to Canadians, read into this record by the hon. member for Ajax, Arnold Chan left us with these words:

     He went on to say:

    We are in a time of climate emergency.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Canada's vibrant multicultural mosaic. My riding of King—Vaughan is a shining example of Canada's diversity, where people from all around the world live together in harmony and prosperity, celebrating our different cultures and traditions.

    Recently I had the opportunity to attend an Eid al-Adha, the celebration of the sacrifice, which provides Muslims an opportunity to reaffirm their faith and gather together as a community.

     Other celebrations held in my riding are Navratri, a festival thanking the Durga goddess, who is the personification of female strength and the dispenser of justice, and Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

    I invite all members of the House to join me in wishing all Canadians Eid Mubarak, happy Navratri, and Shana Tova.

    Mr. Speaker, this is the first week of the fall sitting. We are just getting back from our respective ridings, and I am sure we are all ready to get back to work in the House of Commons.

    One of our roles, as MPs, is to promote our ridings, their residents, their attractions, and their local products. Did my colleagues know that Neuville was once known as the breadbasket of New France? Farmers there perpetuated the cultivation of a unique and distinct product, Neuville's famous corn.

    This summer, the Quebec department of agriculture granted the Association des producteurs de maïs sucré de Neuville protected geographical indication status, or PGI, a designation that confirms the unique properties of this product.

    I invite my colleagues to come get their Neuville corn after question period. It is freshly picked and comes directly from Neuville. I am very proud to share this delicious local product found exclusively in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier with them.

    Mr. Speaker, Ismaili Civic 150 is an initiative engaging members of Canada's Ismaili community to pledge one million volunteer service hours across Canada to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.

    Ismaili Civic 150 celebrates the 150th anniversary of Canadian Confederation, Montreal's 375th anniversary, and the diamond jubilee of the Ismaili spiritual leader, His Highness the Aga Khan.

    Canada has been home to nearly 100,000 Ismailis since the mid-1960s, and about 3,000 of them live in Brossard—Saint-Lambert. Ismailis everywhere are known for their deep commitment to volunteerism and their support of humanitarian causes. Ismaili Civic 150 affirms the Ismaili Muslim community's volunteer service ethic and its commitment to making people's lives better in the countries they call home.

    I would like to congratulate the Canadian Ismaili Shia Muslim community on this admirable initiative.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my first statement to highlight two success stories of the kind that make Trois-Rivières such a vibrant community.

    The first relates to our economy. I would like to congratulate and thank Mr. Di Bartolo, who made such a significant contribution to the development of Trois-Rivières's aerospace industry. Premier Aviation, which now belongs to AAR, just inked a major deal with Air Canada to create and keep quality jobs in Trois-Rivières.

    The second has to do with politics. I take my hat off to the dozens of men and women who have engaged in the democratic process by taking part in the municipal election campaign. Their involvement helps combat cynicism about politics, and it will be my great pleasure to work with the representatives chosen by the people of Trois-Rivières.

    I would like to thank all of the people who nurture our community's social, economic, and cultural development. Anything is possible when we work together.

    Mr. Speaker, as a proud Franco-Ontarian, I want to take this opportunity to point out that Monday, September 25, is Franco-Ontarian Day. Francophone communities in Ontario have a rich history dating back 400 years to when Samuel de Champlain explored and mapped parts of Ontario by navigating the Ottawa River and arriving by boat at the current site of the city of Ottawa in 1613.

    Ottawa—Vanier has strong French ties because one of the first French colonies was located in today's Lowertown.

    I am very pleased that French is still very much alive in Ottawa and across Ontario and is far from disappearing.

    I invite my colleagues to take part in the activities and events that will take place this weekend and next Monday, including the celebrations at Lansdowne Park.

    Happy Franco-Ontarian Day!

    Mr. Speaker, I am standing in the House today to continue to bring attention to the ongoing violence in Myanmar and the plight of the Rohingya. We have seen before where this road ends when the international community does not speak up. More than enough damage has already been done.

    Within our own communities, we have a responsibility to push out discrimination and speak up for our neighbours without a voice, but that responsibility extends to our role as citizens of the world as well.

    There is good reason why the criticism on the “silence of the bystander” has become such a broadly shared adage. Inaction on the part of Myanmar's government has allowed this situation to deteriorate. As such, it is our—the international community's—responsibility to maintain pressure until they step in and stop the violence. I, along with many of my colleagues and many of my friends back home in Edmonton, will continue to do the same for the Rohingya as we condemn the killing of innocent people.

    Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to invite you, all of my colleagues, and indeed all Canadians to “The Best Little Fair in Canada”, which takes place this weekend in the beautiful town of Carp, Ontario.

    The Carp Fair, now in its 154th year, celebrates agricultural excellence and is a great source of local pride in the community. There will be livestock exhibits, carnival rides and games, terrific live music, and a fantastic opportunity to sample the delicious food produced right here by local farms and vendors. I recommend the Huntley burger. I would like to thank the whole Carp Fair and its hard-working team of volunteers, who make the Carp Fair such as a huge success.

    I hope that one and all accept my invitation. I would love to see everybody in Carp. Everyone should remember that if they like to eat, they should thank a farmer, and they can do it this weekend in Carp.

    Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day.

    Singing at the 11 a.m. memorial service on Parliament Hill, as they have for many years, will be the 57 men of the Waterloo Regional Police Male Chorus. The Waterloo Regional Police Male Chorus has been entertaining people in Canada, the U.S., and Europe for 44 years. They are true ambassadors of the Waterloo Regional Police Service. They have helped to raise over $1 million for those in need.

    I wish particularly to recognize the service of the chorus's Sergeant-at-Arms, John Van Osch of Waterloo, who has been singing with the chorus for 35 years, and Rich Mader of Kitchener, who has been singing with the chorus for 23 years. Their participation is proudly supported and enabled by Sally Van Osch and Sharon Mader. I thank all of them for their participation.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of an incredible young man from the riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

    Zach Hofer, 13 years of age, was passionate about youth mental health, but realized there was a lack of programs in our region that actually provided these services. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Canadians between the ages of 10 and 24, yet many of our young people are left without the support that they need.

    Zach took it upon himself to raise awareness and funds through his initiative, Zach Makes Tracks for youth mental health.

    Beginning August 13, Zach walked, ran, and biked 410 kilometres from Barrie to Ottawa, finishing his triumphant journey right here on the steps of Parliament Hill on September 10. Through the generous support of donors from across Ontario and especially in Barrie, Zach Makes Tracks raised over $70,000 for the new youth mental health centre at the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre in Barrie.

    I thank Zach for inspiring Canadians, young and old, to take action. We cannot wait to see what he does next.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Armenians around the world and in my riding of Saint-Laurent a happy Armenia Independence Day.

    While there are only about 20,000 Armenians on the island of Montreal, they form a very active, tight-knit, helpful, and co-operative community. The Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Centre Communautaire Sourp Hagop, and the Notre-Dame-de-Nareg community have all welcomed and assisted many Syrian refugee families.

    Furthermore, not only did Montreal's Armenian community insist that the Armenian genocide be recognized, but it also supported the prevention of other crimes against humanity. For a third consecutive year, our Armenian community organized the march for humanity and genocide prevention, which had thousands of participants.

    I look forward to seeing Saint-Laurent Armenians at the various celebratory events this Friday and Saturday.

    Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day of Peace. This year's theme is “Together for Peace: Respect, Safety and Dignity for All”. Will the Rohingya fleeing ethnic cleansing at the hands of the Myanmar regime whose State Councillor is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate join us in celebrating? The irony.

     After the wars of the 20th century, over 100 million have been killed in world wars, genocides, the Holocaust, the Holodomor. Annually, we pledge “never again”, yet in the 21st century we have had the genocide of Darfurians, Yazidis, and now we stand by watching the Rohingya crime against humanity.

    Canada has brought together people of every race, religion, and culture. It is our multicultural Canada, a peaceful global village prototype. We have shown international leadership in peace: our Pearsonian legacy, the Ottawa treaty, the responsibility to protect doctrine.

    On this day of peace, let us not just pledge peace; let us build the institutions that will create a global culture of peace.

    Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Canada's foreign policy, the Conservative Party continues to put the fundamental Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law first. That is why Conservatives believe that we should stand up for countries and governments that value these principles.

    One such place is Taiwan. Canada and Taiwan have much in common, not least of which is a commitment to democracy and human rights. Something the Liberal government could do to show support for Taiwan is to make an effort to sign a foreign investment and protection agreement with it, as well as to promote Taiwan's participation in international forums like the WHO and the UN General Assembly.

    This week, the General Assembly meets in New York. The PM is at the UN right now, and the opportunity is right before him.

    The Taiwanese have shown strength, steadfastness, and tenacity in the face of very large and powerful adversaries. We can and should do more to show the Taiwanese that they do not stand alone.

    Mr. Speaker, today marks a new, progressive chapter in trade relations between the European Union and Canada.

    With the preliminary application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, thousands of jobs will be created for the middle class and those working hard to join it. CETA will benefit Canadian consumers and businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses such as Numage Trading Inc. and JK Overweel in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

    In May, I had the opportunity to travel to Italy with the Prime Minister to discuss the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. I am very proud to help strengthen the relationship with Canada's eighth-largest trading partner.

    Canada has always been a trading nation. Now, more than ever, we can benefit from economic integration and more global co-operation. CETA is the most progressive and inclusive trade deal that Canada has ever concluded. That is something we can celebrate.

    Mr. Speaker, today is World Alzheimer's Day.

    With 747,000 Canadians currently living with dementia, and an expected 1.4 million Canadians to be living with the disease in 15 years, it is so important that we support the family members who support their loved ones.

    Recently, in a town hall I held, a man in his late eighties came to speak to me about the challenges he faces in caring for his wife with Alzheimer's. He simply cannot afford to put her into a care facility. There is not enough money. “Rachel”, he told me, “I am doing my best, but I am getting tired. What will happen if I get sick too?”

    Too many caregivers do get sick. These people are often working one job to pay the bills, and another to care for their loved ones, or can no longer work due to caring for their loved ones, and face devastating poverty.

    The NDP has always called for better support for Canadians living with Alzheimer's or dementia, and we will continue to call for a bold public health care strategy for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, over the past 11 years I have spent much of my time focusing on the issues of mental health and suicide prevention. Motion No. 388, targeting online predators, passed unanimously in November of 2009, and Bill C-300, calling for a federal framework for suicide prevention, received royal assent on December 14, 2012. These are two initiatives I am proud to have championed.

    I was encouraged in February of this year to receive a letter from Noah Irvine, an exceptional young man from Guelph, who unfortunately knows this issue all too well. In his letter to all members of Parliament, he challenged us to champion the cause of mental health, and to stand up for Canadians suffering with mental illness. His story of personal loss and his ongoing courage in overcoming these trials are an example to every one of us.

    Noah is visiting Ottawa today. It has been my privilege to meet him and sense his ongoing commitment to this important cause. I thank Noah for his message of hope. May he keep up the good work.

    Mr. Speaker, during the last week of September, Toronto will host the Invictus Games, and opening ceremonies Saturday night will take place in the riding that I represent.

    Founded by His Royal Highness Prince Harry, the Invictus Games are the only international adaptive sporting event for ill, wounded, or injured active duty and veteran service members. The games showcase the unconquerable spirit of those who acquired a physical or mental health injury, or illness while serving their country. The strength, courage, and skills shown by these athletes are an incredible inspiration.

    As these brave athletes take the field and compete, let us also turn our minds to homeless veterans, equally brave soldiers across the world, and here at home, who have no home. As our veterans show the world what they can do on home turf, let us raise our game on the home front.

     We can beat homelessness. On behalf of all parliamentarians, I commit our teams to that. I also say, “Go, team Canada, go.”

    Mr. Speaker, the government's unfair, ad hoc reform will have a major impact on our economy. It will not only kill middle-class jobs, but it will also require SMEs to reduce their contribution to the community. What does that mean? It means fewer donations to community organizations, and fewer donations to health organizations and people in need.

    Does this Liberal government realize that its reform is a direct attack on honest middle-class workers who create jobs across the country?

     Mr. Speaker, we currently have a tax system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate so they have a lower tax rate than the middle class. Our goal is to make the system fairer. We are going to find a way to create a fair system in which SMEs can continue to make active investments in their businesses.

    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 86% of entrepreneurs are against the Liberals' tax reforms. Yesterday, I told you about Joseph. After hearing his story, Pierre, Virginie, Gabriel, Nathalie, and many others contacted me because they are worried that they were never consulted. The Liberals are yet again trying to distract us while they pick business owners' pockets in an attempt to finance their own massive deficit.

    Raising taxes on businesses is not going to create jobs. When is this Liberal government finally going to get the message and abandon its reforms—

    Order. The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, our current system encourages the wealthiest Canadians to incorporate so they can get a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. Right now, we have a system where small and medium-sized businesses have the lowest tax rate among G7 countries. That is very important for our country. We want to continue with a very low tax rate. That is the truth, those are the facts. We can have both a system that is fair and a tax rate that is very low.

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey has found this week that 88% of local businesses say this new Liberal tax increase will make it harder to create jobs and grow. That means thousands of young people and new Canadians will not get that first job, and many more might be laid off.

    Instead of taxing away the jobs of hard-working Canadians, why does the Minister of Finance not get his own spending under control?

    Mr. Speaker, those are exactly the sorts of scare tactics we expect from members on the other side. We know that the current system, a system that they were comfortable with, actually gives advantages to the richest over the middle class.

    We are going to encourage people to make investments. We know that what we have done so far has led to a very successful economy, one that is helping businesses across the country and one that is creating new jobs across our country for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a classic case of “do as I say, but not as I do.”

    Our millionaire Prime Minister confirmed these tax changes would not affect what he called his “family fortune”. The Minister of Finance made sure his billion dollar family business, Morneau Shepell, would be sheltered from any of the changes.

    While the government imposes a 73% tax on small business investment income, why did it go to such lengths to ensure that the family fortunes of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister were sheltered?

    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is deliberately misleading Canadians. What he is saying is simply not true.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. I have to ask the hon. Minister of Finance to withdraw the suggestion that someone was deliberately misleading Canadians. That is not appropriate. I would ask him, now, to withdraw the comment.

    Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comment. The member opposite is wrong and he knows he is wrong. What he is doing is paying attention to the wrong numbers.

    We have the lowest tax rate among G7 countries for small and medium-sized enterprises. We know our economy is growing very well, and it is because of the kinds of things we are doing to help the middle class.

    We will continue with our successful program to ensure our economy grows and our system is fair.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I am wrong to suggest that his billion-dollar family business, Morneau Shepell, will be sheltered from these changes.

    Could he please list the changes that will apply to Morneau Shepell?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to talk about what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to make sure that we do not have a system that encourages the richest—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. There are some members it seems who feel the time to speak is not when the microphone is on in front of them and the public can hear, but when someone else is speaking. That is not how it works, folks.

    If members ask a question, it is important to listen to the answer, whether we like the answer or not. I know we do not always like the answers, we may or may not, but we have to hear them. Also, I need to hear them so I can tell whether someone is out of order.

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, we have been pretty clear. We know our system right now encourages the wealthiest Canadians to set up a private corporation so they can pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We know the party opposite is perfectly comfortable with wealthier Canadians paying a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians.

    We are working toward making sure we look at those advantages and listening to Canadians making sure we are taking measures that will ensure our system is fair.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister delivered a great speech on Liberal foreign policy before the UN today.

    However, let us review this government's track record for the past two years: it boycotted the nuclear weapons ban treaty, refuses to commit to a peacekeeping mission, refuses to increase international development assistance, continues selling arms to Saudi Arabia, and I could go on.

    Simply put, what happened to Canada's leadership on the world stage? Did I miss some concrete measure that was announced somewhere?

    Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of the role Canada plays on the world stage. It is recognized by many countries.

    We step up for peacekeeping, we step up for international aid, and we have spoken out against the persecution happening in Myanmar. We are engaged in those issues. We have spoken out against the situation in North Korea. I do not know exactly what my colleague is talking about, but Canada is present on the world stage, and we are very proud of that.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim to have stepped up for peacekeeping, but there is no peacekeeping mission. They claim to have stepped up for international development, but there has been a substantial reduction in our foreign aid budget.

    The Prime Minister is paying lip service to his commitment to peace at the UN today. According to media reports, at the conference on peacekeeping that we will host in November, Canada will call on other countries to commit more troops to peacekeeping without making any specific commitment ourselves. The hypocrisy is astounding.

    When will Canada commit to a peacekeeping mission?

    Mr. Speaker, we believe very strongly that Canada has to play a role in peacekeeping operations. We are very proud of the history of Canada in peacekeeping, and we know Canadians expect us to do it. That is why we have committed half a billion dollars and 600 troops to peacekeeping operations. We are simply taking the necessary, thoughtful, and careful time to consider where we will play that role.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations this afternoon with great interest. As usual, he spoke on how the nation-to-nation relationship was the most important to him, yet I said those words, first nations are still under 172 drinking water advisories. This is up from 159 advisories from before he was elected.

    How can the Prime Minister keep claiming to the world that this is the most important relationship when in reality, he is letting them down?

    Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we are determined to address the very serious socio-economic gaps that exist and to make sure we deal with issues like access to clean drinking water.

     We are very pleased that the Prime Minister spoke with such determination about that today. We have already lifted more than two dozen long-term drinking advisories by doubling the ability to respond to these issues. I will work with the new department of indigenous services and we will end long-term drinking water advisories in the country.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem has already been identified, but without a clear plan from the government, its five-year objective will not be met.

    Let us not forget that this same Prime Minister, who delivered a speech this morning, continues to fight against first nations children, even after one ruling and three orders handed down by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

    After two years of fine speeches, it is time to act. Can the government confirm that it will support Bill C-262 on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

    Mr. Speaker, in the four weeks since I have taken on the role as Minister of Indigenous Service, one of the things I have heard so loudly and clearly is the absolute need to address the welfare of indigenous children in our country. I will continue the work that Minister Bennett has done and that I started in my role as Minister of Health. We will make sure—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order, please. I must remind the hon. minister that we do not use the personal names of members or colleagues in the House.

    The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

    Mr. Speaker, we know the Minister of Finance owns $32 million in shares in Morneau Shepell. His ethics filings show they are held in a numbered company. The minister lives in Toronto, Morneau Shepell is headquartered in Toronto, but the numbered company is located in Alberta.

     Do any of the Minister of Finance's tax changes stop people from registering their assets in a place they do not live in order to pay less tax than everyone else?

    Mr. Speaker, we know our tax system encourages wealthy Canadians to incorporate so they pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. We have identified that this is important for us to look at to make sure our system is fair. That is exactly what we are doing.

     We know that to do this, we need to listen to Canadians and understand the consequences to make sure we get it right. That is exactly what we are doing. Our consultation period is intended to listen to Canadians so we can end up with a tax system that is fair for all Canadians, today and tomorrow.

    Mr. Speaker, Morneau Shepell is located in Ontario and the Minister of Finance lives in Ontario. However, his numbered company that holds his $32 million in Morneau Shepell shares is located in Alberta.

     Is there anything in the Minister of Finance's tax plan that would prevent a resident of Ontario from registering a corporation in another province for the purpose of sheltering a family fortune from higher taxes?

    Mr. Speaker, again, we want to make sure that we are very clear on our objectives. We want to make sure we have a system that is fair to all Canadians. We know that right now there are incentives that encourage wealthy Canadians to incorporate to have a lower rate of tax than other Canadians. That is something we need to deal with. To do that, we need to make sure we get it right. We have been consulting with experts for a year. We have been listening to Canadians to make sure we end up with a tax system that is fair.

    Order, please. I want to point for some members who insist on heckling when someone else is speaking that they may be putting their own side in danger of losing a question.

    The hon. member for Beauce.

    So, Mr. Speaker, no answer.

    The Liberals think that their tax penalty plan will affect just a small number of business people in Canda, but that is not true.

    Why is the Minister of Finance insisting on imposing a tax system on St-Georges Toyota, in Beauce, which will have to pay a 73% tax, when the Prime Minister's family fortune and the finance minister's family business will not be affected?

    When will the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance finally start respecting small businesses in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, we have a clear answer. We currently have a system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate in order to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. The facts are clear. We also have a situation where small and medium-sized businesses have the lowest tax rate in the G7. That is very important for the future and for investment. At the same time, the system has to be fair.

    What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that there is one rule for the Minister of Finance and another rule for everyone else, one rule for big business and one rule for small businesses.

    The government is overtaxing small businesses, overtaxing mechanics, overtaxing corner store owners. Why? To have more revenue to fix a deficit that the Liberals themselves created.

    The solution is very simple: reduce expenditures and provide a fair system for all the country's entrepreneurs.

    I must ask the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis not to bang his desk. He knows that it is not acceptable in the House, and I would prefer that he not do it in the future.

    Mr. Speaker, as I have often said, we feel that is very important to make investments. Our decision is to invest in our country. We began with investments in infrastructure. Now, the report is clear: we have a higher rate of growth than 10 years ago. We have created almost 400,000 more jobs than last year. Our program is working, and that is very important to Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I have heard loud and clear from the people of Abbotsford, including those in the Liberal riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. They are angry as hornets over these terrible tax proposals. Blueberry farmers, entrepreneurs, and small business owners are up in arms. In 12 years as a parliamentarian, I have never seen such outrage, and that outrage grew when they found out that the Prime Minister's and the finance minister's own family fortunes will not be touched by the tax. You tell me, how is that fair?

    I hope my hon. friend has not started asking me questions.

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians want to have a tax system that is fair. We know they want the rules to apply to everyone. That is why we are putting forth rules that will ensure the richest among us do not have an incentive to lower their tax rate through a private corporation, paying a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians, and so we are looking toward putting in place a system that will ensure the system is fair for all Canadians. That is why we are listening to Canadians' points of view from across the country. That is important, but what we are going to do is move forward to make sure our system creates incentives and is fair for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, Tyler and Jody from Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, started their own small business 15 years ago at the age of 26. He told me, “At 41 years old, we just now started again putting money away.... Our life savings is our company....” He cannot imagine why the minister would attack his business and his retirement savings with a 73% tax while protecting the family fortune of the Prime Minister and the minister's own personal family business. How is this fair?

    Mr. Speaker, we are looking toward making sure our system is fair. We are looking toward making sure we do not encourage wealthy Canadians to set up a private corporation so they can pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians.

    We do not want people to be spreading misinformation. The facts are clear. Our low small business tax rate is important. We believe that should be continued. That will allow small businesses across the country to invest in their business to grow the economy. We are going to continue that to make sure that works while also ensuring that this generation, and the next generation, has a tax system that is fair.

    Mr. Speaker, it is now clear to everyone watching that the Liberals have totally screwed up their small business tax plan. How do we know this? It is because even Liberal MPs are admitting that the Liberals have totally screwed up their small business tax plan.

    Why will the finance minister not take up the proposal from New Democrats and from small business owners to expand the review to include all big businesses and to extend the consultations so everyone is heard?

    Let us all now watch the finance minister get up and try to defend his botched plan, or maybe he will finally tell Canadians why he is so gosh-darned determined to protect his wealthy and well-connected friends.

    Mr. Speaker, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share and the middle class have a fair tax rate is something we have been on for the last two years. We have lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the one per cent. We have introduced the Canada child benefit and put a billion dollars in the Canada Revenue Agency. Now we are looking toward closing tax advantages for wealthy Canadians.

     My question for the member opposite is why has his party not supported any of these measures that are helping the middle class. Why is his party sitting on the sidelines as we are making a real difference for Canadians today and tomorrow?

    Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could ignore the biggest abuse in our tax system and call it fairness.

    Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen an iceberg? They are as impressive as they are deceptive. In fact, they are exactly like the Liberals' tax reform. If the Minister of Finance were serious, he would keep his promise to abolish the loophole for CEOs, which is costing us $750 million, and then he would go after tax havens, which are costing us billions of dollars.

    Could the minister's red herring be a way for him to appear progressive while still protecting his friends on Bay Street?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect a fair tax system. That is what we promised during the election campaign and that is what we are doing.

    In the last two budgets, we invested over $1 billion in the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. Those investments are bearing fruit: $13 billion in taxes owed last year will be recovered, and 335 cases are under criminal investigation, not to mention 123 search warrants, 37 convictions, $10 million in fines, $44 million in penalties—

    Order. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

    Mr. Speaker, the government promised to run a small $10-billion deficit, but now it is almost double that and there is no end in sight.

    The Compton family has had a family farm on Prince Edward Island for over 100 years. Three generations have invested everything they have in that farm. Today, the Minister of Finance wants to pick their pockets in order to pay off the huge deficit. He is jeopardizing the transfer of the farm to the next generation.

    Why is the Minister of Finance coming up with a system where the Compton family would pay 73% in tax, while the Prime Minister's family fortune and the Minister of Finance's family business will not be affected?

    How is that fair?

    Mr. Speaker, it is very important to have a fair system. We want to establish a program that does not encourage the wealthy to incorporate in order to pay a lower tax rate and that also sets a very low tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses. That is very important.

    Our investments are very important for the economy, for farmers, and for all Canadians because we are currently experiencing the highest growth rate in a decade. That is very important for SMEs, farmers, and all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, Roy and Ross Newman are farmers in Alberta. They were hoping to pass on their family farm to their sons who would be the fifth generation of Newmans working their land near High River, but they are very concerned about the Liberal tax changes. In fact, tax experts across the country agree. These changes could wipe out the family farm.

    Why has the finance minister designed a system that protects his own family fortune and the family fortune of the Prime Minister, but could mean this generation of Newmans is the last on their family farm?

    Mr. Speaker, I know that farmers, other small business people, and Canadians across the country want to make sure their tax system is fair, not only for them, but for their families. They want to make sure it is not a system that encourages people to do tax planning so they will have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. That is what we are working toward.

    In the case of farmers, we know we want to listen to make sure our tax proposals, which are important to make the system fair, do not have unintended consequences. That is why we are listening to farmers across this country. We know how important they are. We are going to listen to them and we are going to get this right.

    Mr. Speaker, I have not had one farmer or rancher call me in support of these tax changes; that is thousands.

    The Hochstein family in my riding are farmers. They have been working the land for four generations. They budget tightly to ensure that their operation can stay afloat, but they are very concerned that the Liberals cannot manage their out-of-control spending and they are coming for their farm to pay for it.

    Why would the finance minister design a system where the Hochstein family has to pay 73% tax, whereas the family fortunes of the Prime Minister and the finance minister are untouched? How is that fair?

    Mr. Speaker, a good economy helps all Canadians. A fair tax system helps all Canadians. We are working to achieve both. We are making investments in our economy, but we are making sure that we do not have a tax system that encourages the wealthiest to incorporate to have a lower tax rate. That is really important.

    What we will see through the changes that we are putting forward is that, over the long term, farms and small businesses will be better off with a fairer tax system and a strong economy. That will help them and that will help the next generation. We are going to make sure that happens.

    Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Prime Minister thinks that small business owners are tax cheats, so it is easy for him and the finance minister to demonize them and create a system whereby they are paying 73% tax while companies and family fortunes like those of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are sheltered. It is not fair. We all know that.

    When will the Liberals abandon this cowardly and self-serving plan and stand up and do something for small business owners in this country?

    Actually, Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. We now have a situation where people who are wealthy are encouraged to go to incorporation in order to lower their tax rate—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I am having trouble hearing the answer from the hon. Minister of Finance. I need to hear the answer in case he breaks any rules, so I am aware of that. I would ask members to try to restrain themselves and to hear the answer whether they like it or not, because that is what we do here.

    The hon. Minister of Finance.

    Mr. Speaker, we believe it is important not to spread misinformation. What is really important is to make sure we observe what is going on right now, which is a system that encourages the wealthiest to incorporate to pay a lower rate of tax.

    What we have right now also is a system where small and medium-sized businesses pay the lowest rate of tax among G7 countries. That is important. We want to maintain that because we want to allow them to continue to invest in their businesses and our economy. We will go forward to make sure that is the case, and at the same time we will make sure our tax system works for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the government promised to fully compensate dairy farmers. A number of farmers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean have hit a wall because they cannot get the assistance they are owed, given that there is not enough money. Simply put, the government program is underfunded. After the diafiltered milk saga, the Liberals are still chipping away at supply management.

    Will the government keep its word, protect supply management, and improve the investment program in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean? Milk and cheese producers need that assistance.

    Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that we will continue to fully support the supply management system. We are the party that fought to put supply management in place, and we are the government that is going to defend supply management.

    We put a $350 million program in place to make sure farmers and processors were at the cutting edge. That is what we are doing for dairy farmers, and that is what we will continue to do for dairy farmers.

    Mr. Speaker, 2016 saw more Canadians die from opioid overdoses than any year in history. More than 2,800 Canadians lost their lives in every corner of our nation. Despite this devastating death toll, the government refused to declare a national public health emergency and claimed it was making “progress”. Health Canada just reported that 2017 is on track to see more than 3,000 deaths, breaking records in Vancouver, British Columbia, and nationwide.

    Does the new minister call this progress, and if so, can she explain how, when the death toll continues to mount?

    Mr. Speaker, we do recognize that we are in a national health crisis in Canada, and we are responding in a way that is comprehensive, collaborative, compassionate, and also evidence-based.

    Last week, I announced $7.5 million that will enhance the development of evidence-based practices that could be used by those dealing with this crisis on the ground. This builds on our investment in budget 2017 and many actions to date.

    We will continue to bring forward evidence-based solutions to help turn the tide on this national public health crisis.

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has stated that he feels he should not be bound by the same ethical standards he demands of others in the House. He may have forgotten that his own party's changes to the Lobbying Act actually make him a designated public officeholder. This might explain the confusion about the Leader of the Opposition hosting secret fundraisers.

    Could the Minister of Democratic Institutions tell the House what she is doing to pull the curtain on these types of fundraisers?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to know about fundraising events attended by party leaders and leadership candidates, as well as the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. Our legislation will make public the information related to who is going to fundraisers, where and when they are happening, and the amount required to attend.

    We hope the opposition will support this bill in committee so that no opposition party can ever again have their leader hold secret fundraisers. Together let us all raise the bar—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Speaker, Marina owns a family farm and ranch in the 100 Mile House area, which just went through the worst B.C. wildfires in its history. She was already on the hook for an increase from the carbon tax and small business payroll taxes. Last week, she got a letter from her accountant telling her about the changes that the Finance Minister is proposing to investment income. She has been through a really difficult time this summer and feels like she has been kicked when she was already down.

    Why is the Finance Minister going to make Marina pay 73% while he continues to shelter the family fortune of the Prime Minister and himself? Why is that fair?

    Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we deal with tax advantages that allow the wealthy to incorporate to get a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We also have been really clear that we want to retain the low tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses, which is an important incentive for them to invest and grow our economy. That will continue to be important going forward.

    We know that business owners, like the one mentioned, and business owners across this country will find themselves in a continuing situation where our strong economy will help them to invest to keep our economy going over the long term.

    Mr. Speaker, Quintin, a young farmer in my riding wrote:

    Under these changes, if his parents sell to him they will pay far more tax than if they sell to a stranger.

    Why is the Finance Minister ripping apart Quintin's dream while protecting the family income of the Prime Minister and his own family fortune? How in the world is that fair?

    Mr. Speaker, farmers, small business people, and all Canadians have a stake in a fair tax system. We all want to know that we do not create incentives so that wealthy Canadians incorporate to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. For farmers across the country, we know that their business is quite important to them and to Canadians. We are going to listen to them to make sure that we get these changes right. We want to ensure that our system does not create injustices, and allows them to be successful and all Canadians to have opportunities in the future.

    Mr. Speaker, Susan Yakabowich, one of my constituents, recently started up a small business that will help seniors remain in their communities after they retire. She started this new business after she got laid off from her 30-year career. She did not see that as a loss. She saw it as an opportunity to start a small business, put her skills to use, and improve her community. However, thanks to this new Liberal tax attack on small business, Susan is questioning her decision.

    Why has the Finance Minister designed a system that forces Susan to pay up to 73% tax while the family fortunes of the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister will be sheltered? How fair is that?

    Mr. Speaker, we are trying to deal with a system that creates incentives for wealthy people to incorporate to pay a lower rate of tax than middle-class Canadians. We want to make sure that misinformation is not spread to people who want to start businesses. That is why we are going to repeat over and over again our continuing goal of keeping taxes low on small and medium-sized enterprises. We have been clear that we are not going to change that. What we are going to do is to make sure that they continue to have the opportunity to invest, because that is so important for them and our economy.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard from Harvey who researched the impact of the Liberal tax hikes on his small business of five employees in Barrie—Innisfil. In part, this is what he told me:

    Why has the Finance Minister designed a system by which Harvey will pay 73% tax while the family fortune of the Prime Minister and the family business of the Finance Minister will not be touched? Tell Harvey how that is fair.

    Mr. Speaker, for Harvey and all Canadians, what we want them to know is that a system that encourages the wealthy to incorporate and have a lower tax rate so they pay less in taxes than the middle class is not a fair system.

    We know that for Harvey, the lower tax rate that he can pay as a small business owner is really important. We know that we are not proposing to change that. We know that when Harvey takes money out of his business, we are not proposing to change that.

    These are really important things for him to understand. It is very important for our economy, important for Harvey, and important for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals changed the OAS and GIS programs for seniors last January, they promised that “These provisions are not intended to place couples in a worse financial situation.”

    However, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, the spirit of the policy is not being respected. In one case a couple is being forced to file for voluntary separation after 60 years of marriage in order to receive the monthly benefit they need for assisted living care homes. This is clearly wrong.

    Will the minister ensure that the policy changes are not hurting seniors and they get the respect and benefits they deserve?

    Mr. Speaker, I am working hard to ensure that the agency offers quality service to Canadians and that taxpayers get their benefits as quickly as possible. We know that benefits are important to those who receive them, and we are redoubling our efforts to ensure that all Canadians receive the benefits they are entitled to. The agency continues to work in co-operation with Service Canada to reduce the risk of a potential interruption in GIS payments.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister's response is unacceptable. The Liberals promised that seniors who are separated through no fault of their own would not be punished and would not have their retirement benefits clawed back. That is not what is happening.

    The minister says that her department updated its policies to include a clarification that ended years of compassion and common sense. What she calls a clarification, I call pushing seniors into poverty.

    When will the minister reverse this shameful situation?

    Mr. Speaker, our government increased investments in awareness and in the community volunteer income tax program so that Canadians, especially low-income Canadians, can get the support they need to file their tax returns. Most benefits, including the guaranteed income supplement, are based on income. Service Canada uses the information provided in individuals' tax returns to calculate how much they are entitled to.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada's energy sector is a world leader. Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on it. It is the biggest private sector investor in the Canadian economy, but it has had the biggest two-year decline in 70 years.

    Energy east will bring western oil to eastern refineries. It will add export markets to secure Canada's energy future. However, it is at risk. The Liberals froze it, killed the panel, struck another with new rules, and it has been three years. It is Liberal chaos and Liberal delays. Workers and their families need answers. Canada needs energy east.

    When will the Liberals finally champion this crucial nation-building project?

    Mr. Speaker, we very much believe in a competitive and sustainable energy sector and that good projects must go ahead with the full confidence of Canadians.

    That is why we have approved pipelines and energy infrastructure projects that create tens of thousands of jobs, while at the same time protecting our oceans, pricing carbon pollution, addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and working in partnership with indigenous peoples.

    TransCanada's request is a business decision. The proponent develops its project application in a business environment where factors like the price of oil do change. We are committed to ensuring that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand in hand.

    Mr. Speaker, I know that you and your 30 colleagues from Atlantic Canada know that our country imports over a million barrels of oil a day. Why? It is because there is no pipeline to the east coast.

    However, there is a solution to this problem, as my colleague just mentioned. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to clarify the fact that the rules have not changed, but that the Liberals, not the price of oil, changed the rules on this application.

    When is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Environment or Minister of Natural Resources going to come to their senses and preserve the Alberta advantage that the Minister of Finance's trust fund now enjoys by being registered—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, our government stands firmly behind the energy sector as a source of good middle-class jobs and we recognize the importance of competitiveness to this industry. The request by TransCanada for a 30-day pause in the assessment of the energy east project is ultimately a business decision. Canadians know that building a strong economy and protecting the environment are not competing interests; they are shared priorities. We are restoring public trust in our regulatory processes and environment assessments, recognizing that this confidence is key to ensuring that good projects go ahead with the confidence of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals seem ready to go to any lengths to prevent energy east from moving forward. We have just learned that the assessment process has had to be suspended for 30 days. This government is throwing open the doors to petroleum importers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, but is constantly creating obstacles for Canadian companies that would like to create jobs in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

    Why does the Prime Minister persist in making decisions that are costing good jobs all across the country and that prevent the wealth of the west from flowing to the east?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have said a couple of times, our government stands strongly behind the energy sector in moving resources to market in a sustainable way. Under this government, we have approved a number of pipeline and infrastructure projects, but we have done so in a manner that will be environmentally sustainable. This government has achieved far more in two years than the previous government achieved in 12.

    Mr. Speaker, mental health is an issue that affects all Canadians. People like Noah Irvine, a mental health advocate who tragically lost both of his parents to mental health illness, are fighting to improve access to services. In my own riding of Oakville I know that more can be done.

    Can the Minister of Health update the House on what the government is doing to improve mental health services and outcomes for Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the wonderful work that Noah Irvine has done in this area, and I was honoured to meet with him today.

    All members of the House recognize the devastating impact that suicide has on their families, their friends, and their community. Last November, our government launched a federal framework on suicide prevention and announced investments to link distress lines across the country into one national suicide prevention line, and through budget 2017, we are also investing $5 billion to increase access to mental health services.

    Mr. Speaker, last week, when the Conservatives' Quebec caucus met in Lac-Saint-Jean, a number of the area's residents repeated what Canadians have been telling us all summer, namely that they are opposed to the legalization of marijuana as the Prime Minister is proposing. They want to know why the Liberals are ignoring the concerns of the police, the advice of health professionals, and the provincial governments, who are not ready for this.

    Can the Prime Minister explain to us why legalizing marijuana is his government's priority?

    Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been debated extensively over the course of the last two years. The government benefited from a very professional panel review, headed by former minister Anne McLellan. Our legislation before the House largely reflects the recommendations of her task force. The objective is clear: to better keep marijuana out of the hands of our children and to better keep money, billions of dollars, out of the hands of organized crime. The sooner we do that, the better.

    Mr. Speaker, a response to a petition stated that the Kathryn Spirit is stable and that there is no risk of pollution or threat to the marine environment.

    However, when I look at the call for tenders for the dismantling and the response to my written question, I see that a group of experts said there are at least 30 tonnes of residual waste, including asbestos, PCBs, and lead, and probably also mercury, cadmium, and radioactive material.

    Would the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard be happy having 30 tonnes of that kind of waste in his backyard? Does he think $20 million will be enough to dismantle the Kathryn Spirit?

    Mr. Speaker, as we, unlike the previous government, promised, we made the decision to dismantle the Kathryn Spirit. We provided funding to build the cofferdam, which was done some time ago, and we are now in the process of finding a contractor to dismantle this vessel. Naturally, we will keep the environmental impact in mind during the dismantling process. This government keeps its promises.

    Mr. Speaker, next week, athletes from 17 countries will gather in Toronto to compete in the Invictus Games, an international sporting competition for ill and injured veterans, and armed forces members. Canadian heroes will be competing in events such as wheelchair basketball and swimming, which will be occurring in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park at the Toronto Pan Am Sports Centre.

    Could the Minister of Veterans Affairs speak to the importance of these games, and how all Canadians can get involved to show their support for Team Canada, and the brave men and women from around the world who will be competing in their uniforms?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge Park for championing the Invictus Games in Toronto.

    These games have already saved lives. They give many ill and injured servicemen and servicewomen purpose, comradeship that many of them miss, and the joy of elation of sport, not only for the athletes themselves but for the veterans who watch them. For some, it is the spark that gets them moving to get the professional help they need.

    Over the next week, I invite all Canadians from across this country to come together and cheer on these outstanding athletes.

    Mr. Speaker, this summer my office received over 1,000 emails and letters about the finance minister's statement calling them tax cheats and tax evaders. I stand with these entrepreneurs, risk-takers, and hard-working Canadians. The member for Edmonton Centre has apologized for the minister's attack on hard-working entrepreneurs for the tone and language he used in rolling out these proposals.

    Will the finance minister do the same?

    Mr. Speaker, we will continue to fight to make sure our tax system is fair. We will continue to talk about tax advantages that encourage the wealthiest to incorporate, so they have a lower tax rate than middle-class Canadians. We think that is important work.

    We know we need to listen to Canadians to make sure we get these measures right. We also know that over the long term they will ensure that our system works, so people can make investments, and future generations can believe they have an opportunity just like we do.

    Mr. Speaker, the abuse of power continues. Yesterday, the Spanish government conducted a police raid and arrested finance minister Josep Maria Jové, treasury secretary Lluis Salvado, and 12 other Catalan senior government officials.

    When elected officials are thrown in prison, democracy is compromised. It is shameful for the government to invoke non-interference so that it does not have to take action.

    Will Canada disassociate itself from the Spanish government and speak out against these scandalous arrests?

    Mr. Speaker, Canada enjoys friendly relations with Spain. The issue of Catalonia falls squarely under Spanish domestic affairs. We hope that the country's internal debates come to a harmonious and respectful end in accordance with its constitutional framework.

    Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Innovation thinking of joining the NDP, by any chance?