Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act. Introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, the bill seeks to amend the Export and Import Permits Act to close dangerous loopholes in Canada's arms export regime, loopholes that leave us complicit in human rights abuses abroad.
At its core, the bill is about consistency, accountability and conscience. It is about ensuring that Canada lives up to its international obligations and that our industries act responsibly within the global defence trade. The bill is not anti-industry, and it is not anti Canada's defence sector, but it is anti complicity in violence against civilians. It is pro human rights, pro social justice and pro principled global leadership.
Let us be clear that Canada already has strong export controls intended to prevent military exports from contributing to human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law. Under the Export and Import Permits Act, exporters are generally required to obtain a permit after a risk assessment. If a substantial risk exists that an export could contribute to human rights violations, the export must be refused, but there is a loophole and a large one, which is that Canada's current system exempts most exports destined for the United States from meaningful permit requirements.
Because of this, hundreds of Canadian-made military components, ammunition, aircraft parts and explosive materials cross the border with no individual risk assessment, no transparency and no public reporting. Once in the U.S., these Canadian components can be, and have been, incorporated into weapons systems used in conflicts where civilians have been killed or injured. Independent reports have traced Canadian-origin components into U.S. facilities and then onward to militaries engaged in hostilities with documented civilian harm, notably in the Middle East. The so-called U.S. loophole thus enables a pipeline by which Canadian arms can travel into contexts that we as Canadians would never knowingly support.
This is not political theatre; it is a documented reality. Canada is a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty, which prohibits exports of conventional arms if there is a substantial risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, yet our regulatory framework, with its blanket exemption for U.S.-bound shipments, is out of step not only with Canada's international obligations but also with global standards. We have legal obligations under international law, not just of intent, but of due diligence, risk assessment, end-use monitoring and transparency. Without these safeguards, the very values we espouse, such as human dignity, the protection of civilians and international justice, are hollow.
Let us be honest. We should not profit from war, repression or attacks on civilians anywhere in the world. Whether the suffering is in Gaza, Yemen or elsewhere, it matters. Human rights are not situational, and they should least of all be overridden by an arbitrary geographic exemption. Opponents of Bill C-233 have claimed that closing the loopholes would decimate Canada's defence industry or jeopardize our economic relationships. I reject that framing. Bill C-233 would not impede production, innovation or legitimate defence trade. It would simply ensure that Canadian goods destined for the United States receive the same due diligence of permit requirements, risk assessments and reporting as goods going to other destinations.
Industry thrives on predictability, trust and a reputation of integrity. Strengthening our export controls and aligning them with international partners would enhance confidence in Canadian products. Many of our allies already apply similar controls to U.S.-bound exports. Canada's current practices are the outer, not the global, norm. Jobs are not at risk here. What is at stake is our moral authority and Canada's global brand as a principled exporter. There is room in this Parliament to simultaneously support both Canadian industry and human rights, and this bill strikes that balance.
Let me bring this principle closer to home. Recently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a contract to a Canadian firm to buy 20 armoured tactical vehicles built to withstand bullets and blast effects, and there was no robust Canadian oversight of their end use.
This is more than an abstract trade detail. ICE is not a combat military force. It is a law enforcement agency with a documented history of enforcement practices that harm civilians, including migrants and vulnerable communities. These armoured vehicle have been deployed in ways that raise serious human rights questions, yet under our current framework, these sales can proceed with minimum transparency or human rights scrutiny.
This example illustrates the broader point that Canadian products should not be exported in ways that contribute to violence, repression or human rights abuses, whether abroad or within communities in North America. We are a country that has historically championed refugee protections, human dignity and equitable justice. That legacy is undermined when our goods are put to harm in contexts that we ourselves would reject.
I want to underscore an important point about context. The political, economic and security environment in which Canada's arms export regime was first structured has shifted dramatically. As the Prime Minister has noted, “The old relationship we had with the U.S. based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation is over.”
In other words, the assumption that we can treat U.S.-bound military exports differently from all other reflects a bygone era, an era that predates the protectionist trade actions and broader geopolitical shifts under the current U.S. administration. This raises a vital question: Is the America of today the same America that justified this exemption? If it is not, then surely Canada should not anchor its export control policy on absolute premises.
Closing this loophole would strengthen Canadian sovereignty and align our foreign policy instruments with contemporary realities. Bill C-233 would help ensure that Canadian exports, including those that could find their way into law enforcement operations abroad, are subject to meaningful human rights, due diligence and end-use monitoring.
Another core strength of this bill is its commitment to transparency. Right now, data on U.S.-bound military exports are not publicly reported and are tracked only when permits are required, leaving large swaths of the Canadian arms trade opaque. There is no public record of end-users or risk assessments for most of the U.S.-bound exports.
Bill C-233 would require elimination of country-based exemptions and ensure meaningful risk assessments on all exports, end-use certificates to prevent diversion to human rights abuses and increased parliamentary reporting on Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty. These are not radical reforms; they are responsible governance. They are reforms that would enhance public trust and ensure that Parliament has oversight over how Canadian goods are used around the world.
In supporting this bill, we are affirming that Canada will not consign its moral compass to convenient legal loopholes. We are saying that human rights matter more than trade loopholes, that social justice matters more than export exemptions and that Canadian industry can and should flourish without being implicated in violence against innocent civilians.
We are also strengthening Canada's credibility on the global stage, particularly among other nations that have already implemented similar safeguards and view human rights compliance as integral to defence trade. This is not about isolationism. It is about principled engagement. It is about making sure that when Canada says never again, we mean it, not just in rhetoric, but in law.