On Feb. 17, about 50 residents from Toronto’s Davenport neighbourhood gathered in the fog outside the office of Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz. They held signs and shared a microphone to voice their support for a bill aimed at closing gaps in Canada’s arms export regime.
On the same day, similar protests were being held at MP offices across the country — all of them organized by Arms Embargo Now, a grassroots movement that has been pressuring Ottawa since May 2024 to be more stringent about its arms exports.
“It’s concerning when you’ve been watching a genocide on your screen for three years and you can’t even get a straight answer from your MP about … if we are taking steps to ensure that it doesn’t cause real harm to human rights around the world,” Gabrielle McLaren, a Davenport resident, told Canadian Affairs.
For demonstrators, the issue is not only the quantity of Canada’s military exports, but also the opacity about where those exports go and how they are used.
The bill the protestors are urging MPs to pass is Bill C-233, the No More Loopholes Act, a private member’s bill introduced in September by Jenny Kwan, an NDP MP for Vancouver East.
Kwan says the bill would bring more scrutiny to arms exports to the U.S. — scrutiny that is needed more than ever amidst the U.S. government’s crackdown on illegal immigrants.
“Most of Canada’s military exports are destined for the United States, and the vast majority of those transfers require no permit, no risk assessment, and no public reporting, unlike those to all other countries,” Kwan told Canadian Affairs in a Feb. 6 email.
“That is the loophole.”
The U.S. loophole
In Canada, exporters of military equipment are generally required to obtain an export permit from the federal government.
Before issuing one, Ottawa conducts a risk assessment to determine whether the equipment could be used in armed conflict, for unauthorized military purposes or in human rights abuses.
If a substantial risk is identified and cannot be mitigated, the government is required to refuse the permit.
“[If] a police service … recently killed a bunch of civilians… [the Canadian government] would say, well, perhaps there is an overriding risk that these assault rifles would be used in a violation of human rights,” said Kelsey Gallagher, a senior researcher at Project Ploughshares, a non-profit that monitors Canadian arms exports.
“And they would, in some cases, deny the permit.”
However, Canada has long exempted many U.S.-bound military exports from some of its permitting requirements in order to foster an integrated North American defence industry.
These U.S.-bound military exports fall into three categories, each with different oversight and reporting rules.
The first category covers U.S.-bound military goods that do require individual export permits. These shipments undergo case-by-case risk assessments and are reported in Global Affairs Canada’s annual export report. In 2024, Canadian defence firms shipped about $170-million in such military items to the U.S., including firearms, ammunition and bombs.
The second category includes U.S.-bound goods that can be exported with a general permit, under what is known as a General Export Permit 47. The government does not individually evaluate the intended uses or risks of such exports.
In 2024, this category included 15 armoured combat vehicles exported to the U.S. “Those permits don’t require any human rights oversight,” said Gallagher, of Project Ploughshares.
The final and largest category of exports requires no permit at all.
These include items such as combat aircraft parts, standard firearms, and components such as sensors, targeting systems and microchips that can later be incorporated into weapons systems. Because no permit is required, these exports are not individually tracked or publicly reported.
According to the most recent State of Canada’s Defence Industry Report, Canadian defence firms exported over $7 billion in goods and services in 2022, with nearly two-thirds destined for the U.S.
Gallagher says most of those exports fall into categories with little or no oversight.
“The majority of Canada’s total arms exports are exempt from oversight. Full stop. There’s not really any consistent transparency,” Gallagher said.
Akaash Maharaj, a fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto, says components intended for legitimate use can still end up in conflict zones.
He cited the XLCR sniper rifles made by Sterling Cross Defense Systems, an Abbotsford, B.C.-based company, that were found in the hands of a Sudanese paramilitary group accused of massacres.
Canadian-made electronic components have also been found in Russian drones, missiles and armoured vehicles used to attack Ukraine.
Global Affairs Canada’s annual military export report discloses where permitted exports are sent and their value, but not the identity of the end user or the intended use of the equipment. The department told Canadian Affairs this information was “commercially confidential.”
A Global Affairs Canada spokesperson said the figures published in its annual export reports are based on information self-reported by exporters. The department did not respond to questions about whether those submissions are audited.
The department also confirmed that data on U.S.-bound military exports are collected only when permits are required, and even then, reporting is aggregated. There is no public record of individual shipments, end users or risk assessments.
The NDP’s proposed fix
Jenny Kwan’s proposed No More Loopholes Act would require exporters to obtain a permit for all military goods, meaning U.S.-bound shipments would face case-by-case risk assessments and be subject to stronger oversight.
“This legislation ensures Canadian-made weapons and components are not routed to high-risk end-users,” Kwan told Canadian Affairs in her email.
The House of Commons is expected to vote on the bill in late February. “We’re here because the vote is going to be next week,” Emma Chadwick told Canadian Affairs at the protest in MP Julie Dzerowicz’ riding.
“We know that our arms are ending up in Israel, with ICE,” she said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that enforces U.S. immigration laws.
On Feb. 17, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced Canada aims to boost defence exports by 50 per cent by 2035.
“I’d almost like them to just say, ‘We want to make a lot of money through arms and we don’t actually care what the cost is,’” said Chadwick.
“But nobody will be that forthright. They tell us it’s complicated, and that we wouldn’t understand creating a new trade agreement. It’s paternalistic and patronizing.”
Kwan’s bill faces long odds. Historically, only a small fraction of private member’s bills become law.
However, human rights experts and at least two former Liberal cabinet ministers have publicly urged the government to support it.
Global Affairs Canada declined to comment on its position on the bill, instead referring Canadian Affairs to a speech by Liberal MP Robert Oliphant, parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly.
In that Nov. 19 speech, Oliphant told the House of Commons that Canada has “one of the world’s strongest, strictest and soundest” export control regimes, with human rights considerations embedded at its core.
Oliphant said Canada’s current permit exemptions allow Canada to meet its NATO obligations, support allies like Ukraine, and maintain the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Oliphant emphasized that exemptions for U.S.-bound exports are not loopholes. Rather, they reflect “a unique geopolitical relationship rooted in our shared security commitments, continental defence and decades of military integration.”
He warned that Bill C-233’s stringent permitting requirements could strain Canada’s relations with the U.S. and other allies.
Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada and senior fellow at the Macdonald‑Laurier Institute, wrote in 2021 that Canadian defence exports are a tool of foreign policy and that Canada must balance export controls with maintaining a competitive defence industry.
Leuprecht cautioned that excessively restrictive policies could risk economic opportunities and harm Canada’s role in global supply chains, even while mitigating risks. Leuprecht did not respond to requests for an interview by press time.
Kwan says the bill would not hinder Canada’s defence capabilities. “[Bill C-233] does not restrict production, sales, innovation, or the Canadian Armed Forces’ access to equipment,” Kwan told Canadian Affairs in her email.
“It does not weaken Canada’s role in NATO, delay military support to Ukraine, or create new barriers for legitimate defence cooperation.
“Canadians would see proper risk assessments for U.S.-bound exports, clearer accountability for ministerial decisions, and reporting that finally reflects the reality of Canada’s arms trade.”
Maharaj, at the University of Toronto, says the debate highlights changing Canadian attitudes toward the U.S.
“Historically, Canada had a very high degree of confidence in the United States,” he said.
“It’s relatively recently that Canadians have begun to look with skepticism at what happens to these weapons after they cross the border.”
The Feb. 21st CBC program The House had an interview with the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement Stephen Fuhr concerning the government’s defence industrial strategy. He wasn’t asked about Bill C-233.