Debates of March 9th, 2026

Iran and the Middle East

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That a take-note debate on the hostilities in Iran and the Middle East, and the impact for Canadians abroad, be held later this day, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members wishing to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from November 19, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Export and Import Permits Act

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the sincere intention of my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East. Above all, bill C-233 is based on a completely valid concern, that of ensuring that Canadian exports do not contribute to human rights violations or armed conflicts. I think that everyone here in the House can agree on this fundamental objective of defending human rights and upholding international law.

That said, recognizing that legislation is well-intentioned does not necessarily mean that the proposed measures are the right ones. As I said, it is completely valid to ensure that the weapons, ammunition and military equipment produced in Canada, including dual-use equipment, are not used against civilians. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about the situation in Gaza, which is why we proposed several realistic measures that could help to improve it, including repeatedly calling for a complete moratorium on arms exports to Israel.

The Bloc Québécois has always been critical of arms export to countries that violate human rights, such as, for example, Saudi Arabia. We also strongly oppose the export of light armoured vehicles to that country, which is known for its systematic human rights violations. While the Bloc Québécois has never hesitated to denounce Benjamin Netanyahu's deadly policies, the question is whether Bill C‑233 would have a real impact on the situation in Palestine or elsewhere in the world. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is preferable for the government to have some discretion, which promotes predictability and allows for pressure to be applied on rogue countries.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of better regulating military exports to avoid any complicity in human rights violations. However, we believe that the current wording of the bill is too rigid and too broad to achieve its objectives. As a result, we unfortunately cannot support it. Bill C‑233 primarily seeks to address a sobering international situation, but in our view, it adds overly restrictive conditions and limitations.

Although well-intentioned, Bill C‑233 raises a number of concerns. We are obviously aware that the situation with the United States is unique because of the agreement under which Canada is considered a domestic supplier. Indeed, under American law, since 1956, Canadian manufacturers have been considered domestic suppliers, allowing them to integrate the Pentagon's supply chain and to participate in research and development projects in America's defence apparatus.

In reality, it seems this bill would have two possible outcomes: Either the United States will stop procuring from Canada or it will simply not comply. Indeed, the United States could simply circumvent the restrictions in this bill. The idea that the United States would start asking for Canada's approval to ship small arms and light weapons is wishful thinking.

Since the tariff crisis began, it has become quite clear to us that we have little, if any, control over the decisions that are made by the United States. If Canada and Quebec stop supplying the United States, it will change suppliers, and Israel will still receive arms and munitions from the United States. Passing this bill would not even achieve its intended goal, and chances are that its greatest impact would be to weaken a number of our industries, which are already suffering from American tariffs, and I think everyone in this House wants to avoid that. As I said earlier, the intent of the bill is certainly more than respectable, but we feel that, in its present form, it would only yield mixed results. I believe that we should rather keep working at improving existing mechanisms in partnership with our allies and with all the relevant stakeholders.

The measure proposed under Bill C‑233 is also unenforceable because it stipulates that Canada should prevent arms and munitions exports if there is any risk of misuse. Let us face it: There is no such thing as zero risk. It is also a difficult term to define.

Indeed, while genocide is obviously enough to justify the denial of an export licence, the threshold of attacks directed against “civilian objects...protected as such” is rather vague. Moreover, I have serious doubts about Canada's ability to quickly obtain the information needed to make a decision without relying on in-depth investigations by recognized organizations that often have much better knowledge of the situation in the various war zones.

Thus, in our view, it would be best to leave government some discretion rather than opting for an approach that seems difficult to apply, like the one proposed under Bill C‑233. That does not mean, however, that we should abandon our commitment to a responsible approach that respects international human rights and is based on a balanced legislative framework. I would like to reiterate that we appreciate the intent of the bill. Unfortunately, however, we believe that passing this bill would miss the mark regarding military exports.

It should also be noted that Canada has one of the strictest arms export control systems in the world, particularly since its accession to the Arms Trade Treaty. That framework already imposes on the government a duty to assess the risks associated with military exports, including the possibility that the equipment may be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. I acknowledge that it is far from perfect, but in our attempt to close certain perceived loopholes, I fear that we may complicate a system that is already governed by rigorous control mechanisms.

I believe we have a collective responsibility to find the right balance between coercion, protecting human rights and honouring international commitments. For these reasons, while we sincerely commend the dedication of the member for Vancouver East, we cannot support Bill C‑233 in its current form. That is why we will not support it as written by the New Democratic Party at this time. Again, this does not mean that we do not commend the member for Vancouver East's objective.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

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.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill that would amend the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs Canada's defence exports. If passed, this bill would see the removal of allowing exemptions for specific countries.

The bill would change the current legal framework by:

(a) clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms;

(b) preventing exemptions from the Export Control List for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination;

(c) preventing the issuance of general export permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war;

(d) preventing the issuance of general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war;

(e) enhancing the considerations that the Minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war;

(f) providing that the Minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law; and

(g) requiring the Minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada’s compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

I wish we lived in a world where there was no war, where there was no need for military or the weapons to arm them. I grew up in a nation at war. It was a bloody 15-year battle from which the country of my birth has not fully recovered, even with the passage of decades.

We now live in a world at war. Bombs are falling in Iran and Ukraine. Conflicts are going on in Yemen, Sudan and Gaza. There are other smaller conflicts around the globe, ones that rarely get noticed. If there were no weapons, maybe those conflicts would not happen, or maybe people would still kill each other with sticks and stones. If those were not available, they could use their bare hands.

Since the Suez crisis in 1950, Canadians have thought of ourselves as peacekeepers. We see ourselves as standing between those in conflict, keeping warring armies apart. We hope that our presence will allow time for a cessation of hostilities. Our desire is to create a buffer zone that can lead to talking instead of fighting. With this in mind, with that image of Canada as a peacekeeper, we do not see ourselves as manufacturers or importers of weaponry. The truth, though, is that we have a thriving defence industry.

The defence industrial sector in Canada was worth about $14.3 billion in 2022, roughly one half of 1% of the GDP. As members can imagine, a lot of that involves supplying the United States with Canadian technology and expertise.

We live in an ever-changing world where, sadly, hostilities seem to be on the increase. It would be foolish to not examine how we can better defend ourselves from outside threats.

Defence is a primary responsibility of national government. We need to support our defence industry, which provides the means to keep all Canadians safe. Canada's defence industry is tightly integrated with the U.S. defence industrial sector. That makes sense. Our militaries have been working together for years. Our soldiers have fought and died together in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea and Afghanistan. Our troops have served together in countless UN and NATO missions. We are partners in NORAD and numerous training exercises.

With the government's commitment to increase defence spending, significant growth is expected. It is only to be expected that with that growth, our relationship with the United States will continue to be important. That is something important to consider. What would be the ramifications of the passage of this bill on the Canadian industry, Canadian jobs and our country's relationships with our closest ally, the United States?

It is popular in some segments of society to maintain that the relationship between the United States and Canada is at some point irreparably broken. Some people are willing to cast aside more than two centuries of friendship and partnership because they do not like what they hear coming from Washington. I would suggest that this is short-sighted. Canada and the United States have far more binding us together as peoples and as nations than things that divide us. Our common, undefended border is a tribute to the closeness we have.

At the present time, the United States is the only country subject to exemptions under the Export and Import Permits Act. The bill would bring the U.S. under the provisions of that act by removing the current exemption. This would result in a ban on Canadian defence exports to the U.S. if those exports are re-exported to another country on which Canada has implemented a defence export ban. In essence, the bill is an attempt to impose Canadian foreign policy on our closest ally, with those working for our defence industry paying the price.

Certainly, if Bill C-233 becomes law, it would create problems in the Canada-U.S. relationship. How could the U.S. not see this as a significant threat to its defence and security sector? Why would we want to put Canadian jobs in jeopardy? Why would we want to tell the Americans that we are a less than trustworthy defence partner?

While the Liberal government may be vacillating on the number of new F-35 fighter jets it will ultimately purchase, we are committed to purchasing some, spending millions of dollars. The decision to select the F-35 comes with benefits for Canadian industry and Canadian workers, as some of the components of the plane are being manufactured here. What do we tell the workers in Winnipeg making horizontal tail assemblies, who could lose their jobs if the bill passes, or workers making weapons bay door inserts in Lunenburg? The F-35’s engine sensors are made in Ottawa, while outboard wing assembly is being done in Delta. Will those jobs remain in those communities if Canada shows itself to be an unreliable partner?

It seems to me that the bill is not about arms exports so much as it is about bringing an end to an enduring partnership that has benefited Canada. To do that does not make sense to me. It is important that the House send a clear message that this piece of legislation is not acceptable. I encourage all hon. members to vote no.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have not seen this level of global chaos and instability since the Second World War, with a level of death and suffering due to the conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and Sudan that is staggering and horrifying. Right now, civilians in a dozen countries in the Middle East are facing daily air attacks from drones and missiles. Every member of the House has a duty to join with their colleagues to encourage the protection of civilians in these conflicts.

In that spirit, I want to salute the member for Vancouver East for her concern not only in these conflicts but more generally for those who fight for justice and protecting the most vulnerable.

When I read the bill, Hansard from the fall debate on the bill, correspondence from my constituents on this matter, and the outside research and advocacy on it, both for and against, I hear a real concern about the proliferation of weapons of war, especially those that are used against civilians. I share the concern, especially when those weapons are used by leaders from countries to which we are closely allied.

While there are few good ideas in the bill, it is so broad in scope that it would fundamentally damage a regime that is already functioning at a high level to honour Canadian values, a regime that we strengthened when we signed the Arms Trade Treaty and passed further legislation to go further than the treaty.

The bill would limit and even damage Canada's ability to confront the many defence challenges facing us and our allies. It would limit Canadian sovereignty at a time of great conflict, while playing no meaningful difference on the conflicts that are of such justifiable concern to those who support the bill.

First I want to acknowledge one source of the bill: the horrifying war on civilians in Gaza perpetuated by the Israeli war cabinet. It is a war that was started by Hamas, killing and kidnapping almost 2,000 innocent Israeli civilians, who still need their own justice, but a war that has resulted in a disproportionate response by the current Israeli government and its military: a prolonged attack on a vulnerable and defenceless population, in which access to aid and food was itself weaponized.

Both Hamas and members of the Israeli war cabinet have been very clear that they do not just dehumanize the other side but that they also want to wipe it out. Some members of the Israeli war cabinet clearly intend to go further, with the widespread and illegal expansion of settlement activity in the West Bank. The question is how to slow or stop it and how to get justice. After all, these leaders have used not just weapons and bullets but also starvation, torture, arbitrary collective punishment, denying of aid and preventing civilians from leaving the war zone. The killing continues on occasion, even after the ceasefire agreement last year.

At least 75,000 people, most of them civilians, have met violent deaths in Gaza. On top of the deaths on and since October 20, 2023, an additional approximately 2,000 Israel Defense Forces soldiers have also been killed in action. The indictments of members of the Israeli war cabinet at the International Criminal Court on charges of criminal conduct in this war are richly deserved, and it is my hope that they and the surviving Hamas leaders will be held accountable for their actions. We need justice for the victims.

Canada cannot stop this war alone nor stop the killing alone. A well-intentioned vote for the bill may feel good. It may even feel right, but it would weaken our sovereignty without changing the facts on the ground in that war, and it would not prioritize what has the best chance of affecting the facts on the ground.

Our caucus and our government have been acting to affect the facts on the ground. When it became clear that Canadian-made lethal munitions were potentially finding their way into the armouries of the Israel Defense Forces for use in Gaza, our government took action to stop this with an arms embargo. No lethal weapons or ammunition exports to Israel have been permitted since January 2024. This is a sign that our regime, our current legislation and our participation in the Arms Trade Treaty are working.

We have been playing a key role in opening access to aid, including $300 million in humanitarian aid. We also know that a two-state solution with a reformed democratic Palestinian Authority guaranteeing the security of Israel is the only path out of this long, deadly struggle, and our government intends to push for this result at every chance.

I am under no illusions; this solution has been put at risk by both the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7 and Israel's attack on Gaza civilians in reprisal, but, and more importantly, we recognized the State of Palestine last September, joining other leading democracies in that recognition. We can draw a direct line between that recognition and the ultimate ceasefire, a ceasefire that, while by no means perfect, has at least slowed the killing.

As we know, arms exports can sometimes evade restrictions, and there are tools available to the federal government in the current regime to help curb this. As I said to my community in July, if Canadian weapons are being used in this war despite our embargo, then our arms embargo needs to be strengthened in a targeted way. In particular, the provision in the bill under clause 6 that would require an end-use certificate in certain cases, as recommended by the minister of foreign affairs, could be a valuable addition to our regime. We can also do more to sanction, and to seek justice for the victims using the International Court of Justice process and ensuring that it does its work in a timely fashion, and considering extending sanctions to more people who are responsible for war crimes.

However, the bill is mainly about something else. It is about curbing arms exports to the United States. Canada already has robust arms export restrictions under the Export and Import Permits Act and the Arms Trade Treaty. The examples of loopholes that my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, mentioned in the previous debate were mostly before Canada's accession to the ATT and before Bill C-47 of the 42nd Parliament.

Indeed, our regime is stronger than the ATT, with its focus on weapons used against women and children, yet this war and other wars have killed many civilian women and children. Does that mean there is a loophole? It is a tragedy, yes, but it is not due to a loophole in Canadian law.

At its heart, the bill seeks to end legitimate trade and deny export permits with a single country, the United States. That would not be closing a loophole; that would be blowing up a critical defence and trade relationship with a NATO ally. If that were to happen, tens of thousands of Canadian jobs in the defence industry would be put at risk, our defence industry's access to North American supply chains to provide critical material to international allies would abruptly end and Canada would be frozen out of other trade partnerships in retaliation. Instead of working with our allies, we would be turning our back on them.

Every single one of these impacts would lead to a body blow to our sovereignty and our economy, further isolating us from our allies in North America and Europe at a time when, for the first time in living memory, Canada faces actual threats to its own territorial and economic sovereignty. In this moment, we need to build up Canadian sovereignty, not give it up.

Our allies in NATO and Europe are facing actual threats to their mere existence, especially in Ukraine. Ukraine's struggle for freedom from its Russian invaders is our struggle. In my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, we have a large and vibrant Ukrainian community whose friends and relatives back home have been living a nightmare since the 2022 invasion. Canadian firms work with those in other countries, including the United States, to fill production orders for items such as artillery rounds for the Ukrainian armed forces. The bill would disrupt such cross-border supply efforts that Ukraine relies on for its survival.

If Ukraine falls, it would lead to a catastrophic security crisis in eastern Europe, including the possibility of a wider war that could end up on Canada's doorstep in the Arctic and would bring grievous concern to millions of Canadians. The legislation would undermine these efforts and make both our countries less secure, with greater threats to our sovereignty and stability.

I want to stress that I am deeply concerned that weapons of war from Canada and around the world can and do end up in the hands of fighters who use them against civilians. It is a problem that can be solved only by adherence to the Arms Trade Treaty, legislation such as our current legislation, and further international co-operation and engagement.

The Prime Minister recently spoke eloquently at the World Economic Forum about how middle powers such as Canada need to stand together to hold the large powers accountable. Arms proliferation is one area where Canada's moral authority has already led to effective multilateral action to prevent lethal weapons from targeting civilians. In 1997, the Ottawa Treaty was implemented to prohibit the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel landmines, which largely maimed and killed civilians over the 20th century. Over 160 states signed that treaty. The result has been astonishing, with over 48 million stockpiled land mines designed to kill humans having been destroyed.

We can, in this new order, work anew to stop impunity and to use the existing regime to curb the shipments of arms through enforcing the current legislation and working with our allies to establish new international rules to hold countries accountable for their actions. In doing this, we honour civilians, Canadian sovereignty and Canadian values.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. In presenting this bill, my hon. colleague from Vancouver East has argued that Canada must ensure that our domestic laws live up to our commitments under the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT. She has raised serious concerns that are worthy of thoughtful consideration. Indeed, I believe all members of the House share the fundamental goals behind Bill C-233: making sure that Canada acts responsibly on the global stage, ensuring that our exports reflect Canadian values and aligning our policies with both international law and humanitarian principles. The question before us today, therefore, is not whether those goals are worthwhile, because they clearly are, but whether Bill C-233, as drafted, is the best way to achieve them.

I have followed the debate on this bill closely and want to thank colleagues from all parties for their contributions to the legislative record. Their remarks have been well researched, and their arguments have shaped my own position on the bill, which does not actually target any particular country or conflict but seeks to constrain Canadian policy and practice across the board. Because of that breadth, it is crucial for us to think carefully and practically about the impact that passing this bill would have on our sovereignty, our security and our global relationships, and we must be vigilant about avoiding unintended consequences, because the new world order the Prime Minister is fond of speaking of is a complex and dangerous place. Getting that balance right matters if Canada is going to realize its potential as a leading middle power, especially in the context of our geographic location, our obligations to NATO and our other allies, and our international commitments.

When determining whether Canada's export approach should change, as proposed by Bill C-233, we must first examine and evaluate the strength of Canada's existing export control regime. In my preparation and research for these remarks, I was pleased to learn that Canada already has one of the most stringent systems in the world for regulating the export of military goods and technology and that our standards not only meet those set out in the ATT but in many respects exceed them.

In his detailed speech explaining why the Liberal government will not be supporting this bill, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs explained that Canada's export control system already places human rights considerations at its very core and that Canada has gone above and beyond the requirements of the Arms Trade Treaty. Canada already applies exemptions more narrowly than any other ATT signatory. We control a wider range of items than the treaty requires, including dual-use goods and nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technologies. Canada imposes stricter denial criteria than those specified under the ATT, including risks of contributing to transnational violence, terrorism and organized crime. Canada also already has and enforces strict controls on Canadians involved in transfers of military goods abroad, even when those goods never actually enter Canada.

There is a measure of transparency already in place, in the sense that the government has been tabling annual reports to Parliament on exports governed by the ATT since the 1990s, even before the treaty was ratified. As an issue this important should be, our approach to Canadian military exports has been serious and largely non-partisan. To verify these assertions, I reviewed some of the government's recent reports that are available to the public on the Global Affairs Canada website. Current law and practice require Global Affairs Canada to assess whether proposed exports would contribute to peace and security or undermine it and whether they could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. I was encouraged to see that export permits are not rubber-stamped. Applications have been denied, suspended or cancelled on occasion according to the established criteria.

However, our analysis of the bill and its potential should not stop there. Every system can be improved, so we must also consider the broader economic and strategic context in which Canada operates. Our defence sector is deeply integrated with those of our closest allies. A significant portion of Canadian defence exports consists not of finished systems but of components and specialized technologies that form part of multinational supply chains. This integrated industrial base supports thousands of highly skilled jobs across our country, enabling Canada to collaborate with partners that share our values in areas ranging from aerospace engineering to advanced manufacturing.

During the debate, both the parliamentary secretary, for the government, and the shadow minister for foreign affairs, along with numerous other speakers with expertise in defence and international relations, have warned that Bill C-233 could have significant unintended consequences for that co-operation at a critical moment for global security. They argued, and I agree from my own experience in international affairs, that the exemptions within the current regime are not loopholes but rather necessary pathways for co-operation grounded in shared security commitments, continental defence and decades of military integration.

My colleagues have warned that this legislation could disrupt defence co-operation, strain alliances and ultimately make Canada less secure. They have cautioned that the legislation has the potential to reshape an entire industrial sector and that those changes could place Canadian suppliers at a competitive disadvantage and hinder Canada's ability to support crucial international partners that are under threat at a critical time. These concerns are not mere hypotheticals in the current international landscape.

Canada's export policies operate within a broader framework of alliances, trade relationships and co-operative defence arrangements. Prudence requires that we approach changes to these relationships with care and a clear understanding of the downstream effects. We must consider how the bill could affect Canada's credibility as a reliable participant in joint industrial and security initiatives. Legislation always produces some consequences beyond its stated objectives. Even well-intentioned measures can have unintended side effects in sectors as interconnected and technologically complex as defence manufacturing.

During the debate, a member of the Bloc Québécois made an observation that captures the nuance required here. While acknowledging the motivations behind the bill, he argued that the goal of stronger oversight does not automatically mean that every proposed mechanism for achieving it will work. This is where Bill C-233 falls short. It attempts to address legitimate concerns, but it does so through sweeping legislative changes that could unintentionally disrupt economic stability, industrial co-operation and strategic partnerships.

Rather than rewriting the law in ways that could destabilize existing arrangements, we should take the more balanced path of improving transparency, enhancing reporting requirements and strengthening oversight within the current framework. GAC could expand the detail of annual export reports. We could improve parliamentary review of export decisions or invest in additional monitoring of supply chains, addressing concerns about accountability while avoiding unnecessary economic or diplomatic disruption through broad changes in law. We must weigh the moral aspirations behind the proposal against its practical consequences. We must ask not only whether a bill reflects our values but whether it would function effectively in the real world. In the case of Bill C-233, that balance has not been achieved. The mechanisms proposed raise significant concerns about economic stability, industrial co-operation and international partnerships.

Let us commit to continuing the conversation about how Canada can strengthen oversight, improve transparency and uphold the highest standards of responsibility in our export policies while preserving the partnerships, jobs and institutions that Canadians depend on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East for her right of reply.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by addressing the central claim we have heard repeatedly, which is that Bill C-233 would somehow decimate Canada's defence industry and disrupt integrated supply chains. That assertion is simply incorrect.

Bill C-233 would not prohibit exports. It would not restrict production. It would not alter the list of controlled goods. It would standardize permit requirements for items already listed under group 2 of Canada's export control list by applying to U.S.-bound exports the same permit review that already applies to exports to every other destination. Canada already administers a global export permitting system. Extending permit review to U.S.-bound exports would not create a new regulatory regime. It would remove a destination-based exemption.

Regulatory oversight is not prohibition. Conflating the two is simply misleading. Other state parties to the Arms Trade Treaty manage highly integrated defence supply chains while still applying oversight mechanisms, including open and general licences where appropriate, and the United States is part of that regime. Administrative efficiency and legal compliance are not mutually exclusive.

We have also heard that this bill would weaken Canada's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and delay support to Ukraine. Nearly all members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are state parties through the Arms Trade Treaty. Aligning Canada's export controls with our treaty obligations would strengthen our credibility within the alliance. Military assistance to Ukraine is transferred through Department of National Defence mechanisms, not through the commercial export permitting processes that Bill C-233 would address.

This legislation would concern commercial exports primarily to the United States. It would not impede direct government-to-government military aid. In fact, ensuring that Canadian-origin components are assessed before entering the U.S. supply chain reduces the risk of diversion to high-risk end-users. That objective is entirely consistent with NATO's collective security framework.

There is also the claim that Canada already exceeds the ATT requirements. Yes, Canada applies vigorous human rights criteria when issuing permits. That is not in dispute. The structural issue is that most conventional arms exports to the United States require no permit at all. That means no individual risk assessments and no comprehensive reporting.

Annual reports tabled since the 1990s do not capture the majority of U.S.-bound transfers because those exports are exempt from permits. A reporting framework cannot be considered complete when most of the exports fall outside of its scope. We are told that the U.S. exemption is not a loophole and that it reflects a long-standing bilateral defence relationship. That may be true, but its practical effect is that most conventional weapons exports to the United States proceed without permit, without assessment and without detailed transparency. This is, by definition, a regulatory gap.

Canada and the United States do not apply identical risk thresholds. The United States may authorize transfers to end-users that Canada would deny directly. Without a Canadian permit requirement, Canadian-origin components can enter the U.S. system and be transferred onward without Canada ever conducting its own risk assessment. We have seen this concern in reporting by CBC News, which documented that Canadian-origin military goods moved through the United States and onward to Israel during a period when the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Canada was not exporting arms to Israel. This example underscores the oversight gap that Bill C-233 is designed to address.

Former Liberal cabinet ministers Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy recently argued in a Globe and Mail op-ed that Canada's credibility as a champion of the rules-based international order depends on aligning practice with principle. They reminded us that Canada played a leadership role in building global arms control norms, from the Ottawa Treaty to the Arms Trade Treaty. The exemption shields the majority of our transfers from scrutiny and undermines that legacy. They were clear: The issue is not whether we trust the United States but whether Canada exercises its own sovereignty and responsibility to assess the risk that Canadian-origin arms could contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.

I urge all members to look at the facts and vote in support of Bill C-233.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The House will now suspend to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:53 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

Government Business No. 6—Proceedings on Bill C-9

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), be disposed of as follows:

(a) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of the bill,

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(ii) at the next meeting of the committee, following the adoption of this order, the committee shall immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill whereupon all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments and subamendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn until it has disposed of the bill,

(iii) the Chair shall report the bill to the House no later than two sitting days after the completion of clause-byclause consideration;

(b) the bill may be taken up at report stage at the next sitting of the House following the completion of the provisions of subparagraph (a)(iii) of this order;

(c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred, except pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8); and

(d) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, partisan politics is failing our most vulnerable communities. Partisan politics is failing our response to hate-motivated crimes and violence in this country, and when it prevents Parliament from acting to protect Canadians, then partisan politics is failing Canada itself.

The motion before us today is a response to that failure. Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, was introduced by the Minister of Justice on September 19, 2025, and was referred to the justice committee on October 1, 2025. Today is March 9, 2026. Nearly six months have passed since the bill's introduction. Since then, the House has debated the bill and the justice committee has studied it. Well over 30 witnesses have appeared and testified. Communities have spoken, both in person and via briefs, and amendments have been discussed among committee members.

Parliament has done its job of scrutinizing this eight-page bill, but there comes a moment when scrutiny must lead to a decision. After half a year of debate and study, the time has come for Parliament to act. The time has come to bring the combatting hate act to a vote, yet the bill remains stalled, not because Canadians are uncertain about confronting hate but because today's Conservative Party of Canada is divided on this issue. I say this with sincerity. When this bill finally comes to a vote, I believe many Conservative members will stand with us and support it. I believe that because many of them understand something fundamental, which is that Parliament has a duty to confront a specific form of violence that is rising in our communities: hate-motivated violence.

Bill C-9 is not a complicated piece of legislation. In fact, it is only eight pages long. However, those eight pages carry an important message: that in Canada, hatred and intimidation have no place in our public lives.

The bill does three straightforward things: First, it creates offences to stop people from blocking or intimidating others who are trying to enter places such as synagogues, mosques, churches, schools or community centres. Second, it creates a stand-alone hate-motivated offence so that when someone commits a crime of hatred toward a person's identity, the law recognizes it right from the start. Third, it addresses the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of hate or terrorist symbols used to target and intimidate vulnerable communities.

I know many Conservatives support these measures because they themselves called for them. In fact, in December 2024, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released its report on fighting anti-Semitism in Canada. That report, which was supported by the Conservatives, recommended measures that are now reflected in Bill C-9: defining hate more clearly, creating a stand-alone hate crime offence and criminalizing intimidation directed at religious communities.

That is why it is difficult for Canadians to understand what has happened since then. The Conservatives of 2024 called on Parliament to act. The Conservatives of 2026 are delaying the very measures they once supported. Canadians are left asking a simple question: Which position reflects the Conservative Party's true position on the issue of hate crimes?

More importantly, this debate is not only about parliamentary process but about Canadians themselves. In the last federal election, our party made a clear commitment to confront the rise of hate-motivated crime, which appears on page 19 of the 2025 Liberal platform. I will remind Conservatives that Canadians, including the people of Carleton, supported our platform to address hate crimes at the ballot box. They asked us to act. Bill C-9 is part of fulfilling that promise.

I have a great respect for the role of the opposition. Opposition parties play a vital role in strengthening legislation. Their job is to challenge, question and even improve bills through committee work, but not to paralyze Parliament simply because a bill creates internal divisions within their own caucus. Unfortunately, this is what Canadians have been witnessing.

For example, the Conservative member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South spent hours in committee speaking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill, including his admiration for cats and dogs, while witnesses endured countless hours of filibustering and patiently waited to discuss this legislation designed to confront hate. The Conservative member for York Centre used valuable committee time talking about sandwiches he had for lunch instead of debating how Parliament should respond to threats that Jewish communities are facing in his own riding. This is not serious parliamentary work. Canadians expect so much better from all of us.

Let me be clear. The government has made every effort to constructively work with colleagues across the aisle. When concerns were raised that Bloc Québécois amendments proposed in committee might create uncertainty around the freedom of religion, we listened. We worked with colleagues to introduce a “for greater certainty” clause, making it absolutely clear that preaching, teaching one's faith, reading scripture, delivering sermons, praying and discussing religious texts in good faith would never be criminalized by this legislation.

Religious organizations from across the country welcomed that clarification. Groups such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian Hindu Alliance and the Christian Legal Fellowship, pretty much all religious groups, expressed their satisfaction with this additional clause to Bill C-9 and are now waiting for it to move forward. In other words, when legitimate concerns were raised, we addressed them. This is how Parliament is supposed to work, but even after that collaborative effort, the obstruction has continued.

Parliament has already spent more than 35 hours debating and studying this bill. Witnesses have testified, amendments have been examined and every clause has been reviewed. For a bill of eight pages, that is thorough scrutiny, by any reasonable standard. At some point, debate must give way to decision. Democracy does not function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely. The communities affected by hate cannot wait forever while Parliament argues about procedure.

That is why the motion before us is necessary. It would simply ensure that the committee can complete its work and that the House can finally vote on Bill C-9. Let the legislation come to a vote. Let every member of this House make their position clear to Canadians. Those who support confronting hatred will stand up and vote for it. Those who oppose it will have to explain their choices to the communities that are asking for protection.

Here is what is at play. Across this country, people at synagogues have been shot at. Those at mosques have been threatened. Churches have been burned, people at temples have been harassed and children have arrived at school with hateful or terrorist symbols waved outside their school gates. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a troubling pattern that communities across Canada are experiencing. Law enforcement, community leaders and human rights organizations have told Parliament clearly that the measures in Bill C-9 would give them stronger tools to address these threats.

After six months of delay, it is time for Parliament to move forward. It is time to rise above partisan politics. It is time to listen to the voices of Canadians and send a clear message that hatred and intimidation will never define our country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Before we continue, I would like to read to the House a segment of the motion that I omitted in subparagraph (a)(ii): “as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill”.

I thank all members for their attention.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague across the room, and something that struck me was rather unique. She talked about how, when the Bloc introduced this motion to remove a 50-year-old-plus defence in the Criminal Code, the Liberals listened, the government listened, and she and other Liberal committee members listened.

I am going to ask her now whether she can identify which witnesses were called to the committee on Bill C-9 by the Liberal government to support the removal of the religious defence? It is a very simple question, and I would like a simple answer.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, there were many issues discussed at committee, and I remember very clearly that when the Bloc Québécois, in the House, at second reading, proposed the removal of such an exemption, the colleague who asked me the question said that everything was on the table. Therefore, everything was on the table at committee, and we disposed of that very same issue at committee.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, it is illogical for anyone to be able to invoke religion as a reason for inciting hatred. That seems obvious to me. I think it is a very good thing that the amendment was accepted.

I would like to know what my colleague has to add.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that there was a debate in committee, like there is for every bill. After debating the removal of this exemption, all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights voted in favour of removing it. In our opinion, it was the right thing to do.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said before the justice committee that there is “clear hatred” in some verses of the Bible and Torah, and that quoting these scriptures should invite “discretion for prosecutors to press charges”.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice agree or disagree?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today discussing the process. The reason we have presented this motion is that we at committee have been trying very seriously to get the bill studied so it can come to a conclusion, but we have been unable to. As a matter of fact, the member who asked the question has done nothing but filibuster and obstruct the work of the committee, invoking his love of cats and dogs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has put on the record in terms of why it is so important that Bill C-9 pass and on her frustration with the official opposition and the manner in which they feel they have an absolute entitlement to be a destructive force inside the House of Commons and at times in standing committees. As the member has pointed out, this is an issue that was raised during the last federal election. It was a ballot question, as she put it.

My question to the member is this: Would she not agree, given the very nature of the issue, that it is time for us to recognize that the Conservative Party seems to be more interested in the Conservative Party agenda, which in part includes fundraising on this issue, than it is in the public interest of Canada? We can see that through the filibustering they put forward on Bill C-9 at committee.